The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, no sources, no way. Has wormed itself into several local media templates-could someone who knows things better than I do extract it if this is deleted? Delete. Bduddy 04:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete this, redirect as needed -- Y not? 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real-world context. Fails WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT. Jay32183 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High schools generally don't deserve their own page and this article is mostly just about this specific one's sports teams. The school has also been closed since 1982. It should probably be trimmed down to about a paragraph and merged into Beaumont, Texas. Scott.wheeler 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a strong consensus to delete reinforced by badly behaved single-purpose accounts -- Y not? 03:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another social networking website. Speedied for lack of sources. Now reposted with sources, but they are the subject's own website and a press release. Those aren't reliable independent sources. Author argues on article talk page that there are other similarly unsourced pages on Wikipedia; I'm going to be looking at those. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. NawlinWiki 23:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems like we came back full circle with this discussion. We are getting in a gray area where it's starting to become more opinion than strict policy. So, given our current situation, here is my thought. What steps must we accomplish in order to get this through? We need something quantifiable (X numbers of articles, X number of enrolled users, etc…) -- goals that can be met as, opposed to an opinion of what is notable or not. That way we can leave the "other articles do this or that" behind. If we have specific guidelines, we will go after these measures to ensure the article goes through. Again thank you for giving your time and thought on this subject.Mateuscb 06:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as guidebook of no national significance. —Crazytales (t.) 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable guide book. First several pages of non-wiki, non-tomato ghits do not mention this guide in any way, with the exception of their own web site. contested prod Fabrictramp 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. @pple 17:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible WP:HOAX; zero Google hits... Oli Filth 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW(!) I have also Googled this and apart from passing references in a couple of blogs there is nothing. There is no prospect of this being anything other than a delete. TerriersFan 23:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any announcement that there's going to be a third album by Young Jeezy. Even if he does, there's no source to cite it (I tried to Google it, but came up with nothing). MITB LS 22:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio advert (WP:CSD#G11, WP:CSD#G12). --Coredesat 08:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find evidence of notability besides one article that mentioned them on what seems an ed piece. Brusegadi 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable, failing WP:MUSIC. - KrakatoaKatie 05:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An album by the band Charles Bronson, see afd below. This article, like its bands article makes no assertion of notability beyond being an album from a non-notable band. The article contains no sources and doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC IvoShandor 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – no reliable sources to back up claims of notability. - KrakatoaKatie 05:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no assertion of notability past its unverified claims. Doesn't appear to meet the guidelines at WP:MUSIC, a cursory search for reliable sources revealed none. I prodded the article on August 17 but it was removed August 21 (diff), just so folks know. IvoShandor 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable. Sources provided included several vendor pages for purchase of his book, and articles were mostly brief mentions in pieces about network security. The article's creator has no Wikipedia edits outside this subject. While its creator and multiple SPAs seem to be very interested in this article's future, this person does not meet WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Plenty of third-party sources attesting to notability are accessible from the references on the page 69.116.62.33 13:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC) — 69.116.62.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
— 70.21.254.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Please Note: I am the author of the page and I added more material today to make clear the notability of the subject including more on his inventions, publications, and the fact that the customers of over 1,300 financial firms in the USA use, and benefit from, his inventions. Rajeshh 14:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to episode list. Xoloz 13:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be anything "out of universe" or any significant coverage by secondary sources. Considering Robot Chicken episodes don't have plots, there's nothing that can be merged or summarized elsewhere. 17Drew 07:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination extended - There is no point in actioning just this article - there are 44 articles linked from List of Robot Chicken episodes, all in the same format. I am therefore, on procedural grounds, extending the AfD to all 44 articles and relisting to enable editors to take a view on this broader nomination. At the moment, the consensus is for merge/redirect but the only mergeable content appears to be the images. I am neutral on the nomination. TerriersFan 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - To the List of Robot Chicken Episodes, as hillarious as they may seem RC episodes lack any order, a user that isn't familiar with the subject would be freaked to read a plot that begins with Roddy Piper's skirt blowing up in the air and culminating with What a Twist, sorry but the program's format just doesn'r really allow for an encyclopedic entry. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The two mentioned articles aren't about girl-wonder.org but about the issue of gender bias in comics, and they both only briefly mention this particular site. The article Dhartung points to is a reprint or mirror of the Mother Jones piece. Fails WP:WEB, at least for now. - KrakatoaKatie 05:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage by Mother Jones but is that sufficient to = notability? Was tagged speedy, I bring it here. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Alksub 20:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. No third-party references. Alksub 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard suburban roadway, of which there are millions. The only "notable" fact, which I removed because it was a copyright violation from [7], is that it was built to connect two schools; this also describes at least thousands of roads; most major suburban roads started out as rural roads. A map of the road (Google Maps) can be seen here. NE2 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#CRYSTAL: there is no evidence this work will be made. Alksub 20:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Topic already covered sufficiently in Warrior Nun article. There is nothing encyclopedic worth merging; a redirect might be in order, except that the title is exceedingly unlikely as a search term. Xoloz 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research religious interpretation of a comic book. No secondary sources. Alksub 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for this article in particular, it began on the chief Warrior Nun Areala page. I--and despite solicitation for help, it is usually I--usually start there writing about new topics related to the comic book at hand and if they become too long, split them off into other articles. By itself, the original page was part of the central article and as part of that central article it had ample context and outside articles to be acceptable. However, the Heaven and Hell in page--originally titled Factions in page--grew very long and I decided to split it away. I merely began a new page and cut and pasted the information.
Soon after the new page was created, a marker was posted suggesting that it was inappropriate for various reasons. On seeing this, I decided to edit the page in order to conform. I cut and pasted unneeded information. I placed new information to explain the article to new readers. I re-wrote it in order to undo the "in-universe" style.
It at times was a "soap box" and I admit to taking pleasure in writing about the topic and in dissemination the information held, though I assure everyone that I was never deliberately trying to do anything but factually write about the comic book itself. Also, the religious information is mostly just what is presented in the comic book. Regardless, when I was presented with requests for alteration, I chose to follow the guidelines and stay to information exclusively related to Warrior Nun Areala. I apologize for even accidentally conducting "original research."
With that done, I thought that was enough and removed the tag, thinking that I had rewritten it according to the rules. Another tag appeared soon after. I rewrote the article further but again, I apologize for acting in haste.
At the moment, the article is half its former length with unnecessary information removed, and no-in-universe writing style. I hope that it will be deemed capable of meeting the necessary guidelines and that this article will be allowed to stay. However, I will not protest if it is deleted because I understand that the website administrators are merely trying to do their duty. (To a degree I even understand why they might delete the present version; it is so short and bare that it might best be merged with other relevant Warrior Nun articles.)
In any event, good day and good luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Juangarcia1982 (talk • contribs) 01:08, August 22, 2007 (UTC).
The result was delete. Singularity 18:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original-research film interpretation. Alksub 20:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Air Force officer. Corvus cornix 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
The result was Delete. Keep commenters below appear unfamiliar with appropriate WP guidelines and policy, as their arguments fall under WP:ILIKEIT. Deletion commenters base their suggestion in sound policy-oriented reasoning. Xoloz 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:CVG article criteria. Guideline reads : If information is only of note to someone who plays the game, then it probably isn't worthy. Oscarthecat 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not notable enough. Publisher of her book (Parenting Press) doesn't have an article here. Created by an account named "Parenting Press". Book has an Amazon Sales rank of 5,341. Listing here for community input. No Vote. Exxolon 19:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 16:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced BLP about a winner of a kids tv contest, apparently nn Carlossuarez46 19:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. @pple 17:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted after nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Club Penguin Locations. It has since been recreated, and while this new version is not exactly the same as the original, the same substantive issues apply. Specifically, the contents of the article cannot be verified by reliable, third-party published sources as required by WP:Verifiability. In addition, most of the content is prohibited WP:Original research. Finally, the article serves primarily as a game guide in contradiction of the prohibitions of WP:NOT#GUIDE. -- Satori Son 18:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep This does not of course preclude the relisting of articles individually or the merging of articles. There is no consensus for deletion here, and I find no overriding policy to bypass the consensus. I'll disclose that I have discounted or assigned less weight to arguments presented "I like it" and "I don't like it" and arguments presented by what appears to me, to be single purpose accounts. Regards, . Navou banter 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(View AfD)
A long list of Dungeons and Dragons creatures that have no references beyond the monstrous manuals from which they spring (and the occasional mention in the affiliated magazine Dragon). No evidence of independent importance (i.e. notability)-Eyrian 18:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standars —Lesfer (t/c/@) 18:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was keep. John254 16:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a supposedly popular living author. Completely unsourced. There is an article about him on Italian Wikipedia, but that too is completely unsourced. This article (the English one) has been tagged as unsourced since June. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted This article is about Naturism and has no information about the Greek Naturist Society, see discussion Andreas (T) 18:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – no sources to back up status/accomplishments, so it clearly fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supposed to be about a highly accomplished writer--it gives a long list of his supposed accomplishments. However I'm concerned at the inadequacy of the sources. It doesn't seem to be verifiable. Perhaps we should pay some attention to finding out whatever about this fellow is verifiable and removing the rest, or alternatively we should delete it. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to World's largest airlines.. -- John Reaves 16:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is essentially a duplication of World's largest airlines. The other article has just had a speedy keep in response to a proposal for deletion, so this article with almost identical information (not laid out as well) and talk page is redundant. Harry was a white dog with black spots 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as WP:NOR and lacking any verifiable sources, then redirect to Cult film. The article is inaccurate, as pointed out by Tony Sideaway, and it duplicates parts of Cult film and Cult following. The first AfD go-round elicited pledges to clean it up and improve it, but it didn't happen. - KrakatoaKatie 06:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long list was recently removed from this article and used to create a separate article, List of cult classics, which is now listed for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult classics). But I'm concerned about this article. The article seems to be the opinion of just one or two people, seems to have been written from a particular national perspective, and has been marked as unsourced since last listed for deletion in May, 2007. The article seems to have been written in such a vague way that it would be possible to replace the term "cult classic" with "popular film, book, play or novel" throughout.
It's poorly researched. For instance, Dumb and Dumber was far from the start of Jim Carrey's career; he had enjoyed considerable mainstream success in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and The Mask. And his co-star Jeff Daniels was by then a Hollywood veteran, enjoying critical acclaim in Woody Allen movies such as The Purple Rose of Cairo, and box office success in Arachnophobia. It seems that this article has consistently failed to attract knowledgeable writers who can do justice to the subject matter, and we'd probably be better off without an article here. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Cult Classics page! It really doesn't fall into other catagories as well as some people should like. Besides that, the reasons that other people list are completely bogus. People have already volunteered to clean it up as soon as possible, so at least give them a chance to before tearing it down!!! As it was already mentioned, Wikipedia would be half gone if all the articles that are 'poorly researched' were deleted, then we would be left with hardly any articles! Keep the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.178.181 (talk) 16:27, August 26, 2007 (UTC) — 71.3.178.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Singularity 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable label that fails to establish any notability Lugnuts 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Rock Lab Records"; not a criterion in itself, but not promising....). -- MarcoTolo 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was keep Mr.Z-man 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod disputed based on the "iconic" status of Monty Python. WHile the Pythons are indeed highly notable, that notability is not inherited by every single thing they've ever done. The song does not appear to have been the substantial subject of reliable sources and thus is not independently notable. It also fails the proposed notability guideline for songs as it did not chart. Otto4711 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – clear consensus. - KrakatoaKatie 07:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod disputed based on the "iconic" nature of the source program. The article clearly fails WP:PLOT as it is nothing but a plot summary of a Monty Python sketch. The individual sketch is not independently notable and the notability of Monty Python is not inherited by all of its sketches. Otto4711 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standars —Lesfer (t/c/@) 17:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod disputed on the basis of the "iconic status" of Monty Python. I certainly do not dispute that Monty Python is highly notable but since notability is not inherited it does not follow that every single sketch from every single episode also is. This individual sketch is not notable on its own and the article is also a clear violation of WP:PLOT as it is nothing but a description/plot summary. Otto4711 17:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - disputed prod. There is no notability for this song, as it has not been substantially the subject of reliable sources. It also fails the proposed guideline for songs at WP:MUSIC. The notability of Monty Python does not mean that everything they've ever performed is notable. Redirecting to the album article is also satisfactory but since the prod has been disputed, best to bring it here. Otto4711 17:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – clear consensus. - KrakatoaKatie 07:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed by editor stating that "It's Monty Python so no rules apply." Since the last time I checked, Wikpedia is not an anarchist site, rules do apply to this article, and it specifically violates the rule WP:PLOT. The article is a plot description of a Monty Python sketch which is not notable outside the show. The unquestionable notability of Monty Python's Flying Circus is not inherited by every five-minute sketch from every single episode. Otto4711 17:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Especially in light of the recently-concluded Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Dragons creatures, it seems there are reasonable disagreements regarding the encyclopedic notability of these creatures. As the article is sourced, policy does not demand its deletion, and the discussion below offers no definitive result. Xoloz 13:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable example of a fictional demon. Fails to have any substantial real-world impact, reported in reliable sources. Eyrian 17:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists of promotional material for non-notable company Jeremy Tobacman 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. — Malcolm (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn product without any 3rd party sources showing notability Carlossuarez46 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More an unreferenced news item than an article. Merge into Pershore College or what? -- RHaworth 17:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. TW is unwise in this case, as the neologism is unsourced, and potentially offensive. (All Wiktionary entries should be verifiable, of course; but, it is especially important for possible slurs to be well-documented. Xoloz 13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious neologism Rackabello 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There was a consensus for the article to be kept and this position is underpinned by some significant media coverage. TerriersFan 22:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mild delete as this is a relatively uncertain area. Her claim to notability is as the wife of the leader of a political party. Of all the other British post war third party leaders' wives, the only one with an article is Marion Stein (the second Mrs Jeremy Thorpe) whose notability rests on her musical career rather than her marriage. There are no articles on Sarah Kennedy (that page is for another woman), Jane Ashdown, Deborah Owen, Jennifer Jenkins, Laura Grimond or Caroline Thorpe. Timrollpickering 17:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microstub on a dead mall in Wisconsin. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. Tagged for orphan since April. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of two non-notable malls in Plattsburgh. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS. I've tried to source this article before with no luck.
I am also listing its defunct twin:
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mall in Vermont, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, doesn't require its own article. Could possibly be rolled into a Star Trek or Starship main article. Problems with WP:V Rackabello 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no assertion of notability whatsoever. Could be a WP:CSD#A7 candidate actually. Húsönd 16:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed by anon without comment. This fails WP:PLOT in that it is a plot description of a Monty Python character/sketch that has no real-world notability. Otto4711 16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Neil ム 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page fails to meet WP:BIO and WP:N - there is a single source which only lists his works, which were produced between the 1920s and 1960s, and have apparently not been produced since. From my interpretation of WP:BIO, volume of work is not a criteria for notability unless I am mis-reading it. In additon, all text on the page barring the list of works is unsourced and looks a lot like WP:OR without one. All of the external links found in the text are to the illustrators, which do not even appear to link to illustrations of MacGregor's books. Ultimately there is no significant coverage. It has met none of the criteria for WP:BIO, particularly none of the list of creative professionals (not widely cited, did not originate a new concept, no well-known work or body of work, and not a monument, exhibition, subject of critical attention or permanent collection. At minimum, to remain on wikipedia it would require significantly more sources than the entry in a library catalogue. WLU 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also note the opening sentence: "Little is yet known of Reginald James MacGregor". I'm pretty sure he's dead, so our chances of expanding the page further are probably minimal. WLU 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neil ム 11:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article does nothing to establish the company's notability and currently reads like an ad--should probably be as notable as Good Vibrations or Babeland to have an article Katr67 16:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, although it would be appreciated if the numerous sources and references provided in this discussion were to wander their way onto the article; if following their addition, there is still a feeling the article should be deleted, no prejudice towards discussion being reopened. Neil ム 11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The only secondary sources ever provided are critical, and consist of links to Tim Lambert's blog and to brief coverage in the Skeptic's Dictionary. This is not "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources." The article is a WP:COATRACK and POV fork to present Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. MastCell Talk 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; if a expert comes, I will reconsider. Singularity 18:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Pressure extension" seems to be a known term in the engineering literature on natural gas. As a very specific topic, the article might be worth a merger to pressure measurement or similar articles. However, the present article is not suited for a merger. Its sources are very imprecisely cited, and it is almost incomprehensible (not even the symbols in the formulas are defined completely). In search of an expert, I contacted WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Technology, and WikiProject Energy, plus the original author; but I reached no one who could do a cleanup, or say where the article should be merged. So, as a last resort, I propose to delete the article as unverifiable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move. Note that during moving the article, someone managed to remove the AFD header from the article, which is not a good thing to do, and would technically invalidate this AFD. Neil ム 11:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the inventions in the article are not notable. The article needs to be moved to List of finalists on American Inventor, and list the 16 total who got to spend 50,000 dollars in season 1 and 2. Codelyoko193 TalkEditor Review 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 18:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article offers no information beyond location and no sources. Appears to be nothing special or notable in construction. Google has 21 unique hits without Wikipedia, a couple of local media reports on renovations, the rest as a place marker in directions or stories about bodies being pulled out of the river. Nuttah68 16:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Spare discussion, but sufficient in the case of an article lacking WP:RS (and thus, failing WP:V), where policy demands deletion. Xoloz 14:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable company, no independent sources, includes trivia such as the typeface used in the corporate logo. Disputed prod. NawlinWiki 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 18:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unsourced. Could be true, but just as likely a hoax, given the name. The heading "Famous Kashmiri Butts" just screams hoax. Even if there is a core of truth, in it's current unsourced state any part of it could be hoax-fodder. IMHO just not useful as it is. TexasAndroid 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Article completes lacks WP:RS; hence, there is nothing able to merged to any other article, consistent with the core policy WP:V. The keep arguments are very odd -- they argue for the notability of the code which is not really in question, as the code has its own article. This separate article here, as it is written now, cannot be allowed to remain, given the requirements of WP:V. If this content belongs with Konami code, it must be sourced first. Xoloz 14:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#DIR, fails WP:TRIVIA. Otto4711 15:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PeaceNT 12:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Being a knight doesn't make someone notable, neither do either of the positions he held. No non-trivial coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:BIO. Stramash 15:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very justified nomination but now greatly improved. It is a great pity, that as with the various members of the Arbithnot family, the only way that certain pages can ever hope to be improved is by nominating them here. Giano 07:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated topics. The mere presence of Robin Hood, or a character who "aspires" to be Robin Hood, or who in the opinion of the editor who spots it may be in some way based on Robin Hood but lacks sourcing that says so, doesn't mean that the things bear any relationship to each other. Otto4711 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete this and several other articles on albums by the same artist. None of them assert notability (speedy category a7). NawlinWiki 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable album, artists and no reliable sources found on google. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a list of examples of code in the programming language C++. It seems to be the sort of software guide prohibited by WP:NOT#GUIDE, no pages in article space link to it, and the main C++ page already includes embedded examples of code. As such, I think it should be deleted. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of unassociated items that have nothing in common beyond happening to have included a particular weapon. This tells us nothing about the weapon, nothing about the fiction from which use of the weapon was included, nothing about any relationship between the items (as there is none) and nothing about the real world. Oppose merger of any of this information to any other article as it is just as trivial as part of another article as it is as a standalone. Otto4711 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this isn't original research I don't know what is. cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted at AfD. DRV overturned this closure, with the consent of the deleting admin. Still, weak delete given notability concerns for minor-league ballplayers. Xoloz 14:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense (rock band allegedly founded in 1787). NawlinWiki 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over the top band bio, fails notability, somewhat of a tongue in cheek WP:HOAX. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (requested by author). PeaceNT 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More Scientologycruft, fails WP:BIO. This non-notable person did some affidavits in court appearances (and subsequently went back and recanted them). Gets 155 unique Ghits and most of them are blogs, personal homepages, and junk. wikipediatrix 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, they may be notable if they are regarded as an important figure or are widely cited by their peers or successors. Vicki Aznaran was President of RTC and Inspector General, the same post held by David Miscavige, immediately before DM's rise. She left the CoS and sued the church for 70 mill. She was considered an expert witness by church critics involved in litigation against the church, and was used as such by them for several years. Did she suddenly become 'not notable' when she recanted, despite having been very notable and worthy of credence before? Or is the real problem that she's an unperson who must never be mentioned because of the recant? S. M. Sullivan 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this list is too trivial. Proponents for keeping this information do argue that this information can be found in reliable sources and may be useful for comparison purposes; however, the counterargument of mentioning any germane changes in the season article(s) seems to be more appropriate in light of avoiding indiscriminate information, since there will be more context in those articles, and, as was pointed out, not all roster changes are noteworthy. — TKD::Talk 18:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD for this list was closed as "no consensus"; DRV overturned this closure, but the consensus was too narrow to delete the article outright from DRV. The article is thus relisted. Delete, as an unencyclopedic list. Xoloz 14:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 11:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. Non-notable made for TV movie with little to mark it out for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Does not appear to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films) WebHamster 14:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I fail to see how this special effects technician meets WP:BIO. Pascal.Tesson 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability and no sources. NawlinWiki 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, written like advertisment. Oysterguitarist 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 08:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable conspiracy theorist; lack of independent reliable sources Tom Harrison Talk 13:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This small documentary film is not in wide release and fails WP:MOVIE. It has one review that mentions a premiere in March, but the other cited source claims it will review the film once it has been screened at 'the American premiere' it will host at some unspecified time. Finally, the article is more about the loss of Columbia and criticism of NASA, for which we already have articles. KrakatoaKatie 13:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This series (primarily, but apparently not exclusively, YouTube videos) is unsourced. Its only assertions of any significance are YouTube/website views, which aren't an indicator that it passes WP:WEB or WP:N. The only reasons that this wasn't, in my opinion, speedily deletable by criterion A7 are that it seems not to be entirely web-based (the lead claims DVD distribution) and that the YouTube popularity could be construed as an assertion of significance. Still, with only 34 Google hits, none of which seem to be reliable third-party sources, I don't think that there's enough reliable, independent content out there currently for an article. — TKD::Talk 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a rehash of a larger and more thorough listing that are in the pages entitled: List of people in Playboy 1953-1959, 60-69, and so on. There's no point to having this page in addition to those others. Dismas|(talk) 12:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Garden of Earthly Delights in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)
Delete as per WP:Trivia. Apparently I have to do this myself since the nominator of the article has got himself banned for vandalism. If I can make one caveat it is that there is a public hygine issue here, it seems this kind of cruft has to go somewhere or it'll leak back out onto the main article. It might be better if there was a harmless refuse pit it could be buried in. Twospoonfuls 12:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found only one substantiable claim towards WP:MUSIC for this artist, namely on his homepage: He claims that he made it to the "Billboard country top 40" (sic). I actually can't figure out what chart he is precisely referring to; Billboard has many, and certainly not all of them imply notability. Also, the Billboard web site lists his discography, but does not show any charted hits for him [46]. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here, since I am not familiar with the US music charts, but to me he seems non-notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO Epbr123 12:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If individual albums are demonstrably notable, then pages can be created on them. However, a discography as suggested by WP:MUSTARD may consist of album names only, as are already listed at Harvest (band), and the general consensus seems to be against a standalone detailed track listing etc. MastCell Talk 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discography for a Christian band. The band article has essentially one editor, User:Jamielang77. This discography has one editor, User:Jamielang77. There are very few inbound links for Harvest (band), all added by User:Jamielang77. User:Jamielang77 has some tens of edits, all to Harvest (band), adding links to that band from other articles, and adding this discography. In short, then, this is creeping fandom. This article is entirely unnecessary, adding a level of detail well beyond what might reasonably be justified. Cruftbane 11:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 18:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please evaluate against WP:MUSIC, I believe that is does not pass this test --Xorkl000 11:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to article about series. Jaranda wat's sup 23:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on one of the nine episodes made of the TV series Star Cops. This is a minor topic that does not require a separate article for each episode made. The article itself consists of little more than a plot summary and there is not much scope for expansion due to the limited number of potential sources related to this subject. I see no reason why any significant points pertaining to this episode cannot be incorporated into the main Star Cops article where better context can be given to them. On the grounds that it contravenes WP:FICTION and WP:NOTABILITY, I propose it should be deleted. Joe King 10:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musician autobiography. Is he notable? -- RHaworth 10:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His only singles have been out in places like the Virgin Islands. He's not remotely notable. Plus, the only sources are LastFM and Myspace. Waste of time article. Porterjoh 11:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly meets - Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. - of WP:Music. However no sources are cited. Additionaly I doubt it meets WP:N - An artist without a real website and only MySpace to show these days? 1redrun 11:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find anything to suggest such a term exists, no sources, when do a google search [49] only reference is to a Horton's law of stream lengths not this article's topic Davewild 10:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, website with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 16:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and defunct website. (Disputed speedy.) -- RHaworth 09:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contested ((prod)). This is a non-notable fringe theory. No case is made in the article about why readers should think the theory is notable. Just listening to the works will convince anyone who knows a bit about music that this theory's claim that Luchesi wrote Mozart's Symphonies nos. 39, 40, 41 and Haydn's London Symphonies is unlikely. RobertG ♬ talk 09:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL Iks33 09:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, and not notable. RobertG ♬ talk 08:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to the deletion policy page:Content not suitable for an encyclopedia. The article has been almost duplicated from Comparison of Windows and Linux with very little topic specific info. These thoughts can even be found on the page's discussion page. Acetylcholine 06:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. @pple 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page earlier deleted. Recreated with near-empty content. Concept per se does not exist as a subfield of political science; all political science is the study of political change. Please note that a google test obviously will not work for something which is a common phrase but a non-notable subject for an article. In the absence of a common definition or field of study that this article would encompass, any contributions would obviously be OR, like it is now. Has been a stub since creation 10 months ago. Prod removed by creator. Hornplease 06:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 08:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article apparently created by the subject himself raising WP:COI issues. Reads like an advertisement, with a little POV language, and absolutely no publicly verifiable, third-party reliable sources. A Lexis-Nexis news search produces no hits for the name “Jonathan Pink,” “lawyer,” “attorney,” “Los Angeles,” etc. also calling into question the notability of the subject per WP:N. A google search yields similar results with hits registering only for self-published articles on blogs and the corporate website. J Readings 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Those was no support for this to continue as a standalone article. All the material in this article is already in the Pepsodent page with the exception of the image that I will move across (and add a fair-use rationale). TerriersFan 20:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information in this aticle is covered in the article for Pepsodent, and there is virtually no additional information that could be added, making this article hopelessly redundant. Calgary 05:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Singularity 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable contestant on reality show. See Crystal Clark deletion discussion. Tinkleheimer 09:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Against It's too early right now to make a delete call on Hygena. She may turn out to be the season two winner, and an article would be required. Take note that Feedback has his own page. Another good note here is that Hygena was a guest at Comic Con this year and on the panel for the show. --GrashDaStampede 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In that case then articles could be used for all contestants, and then when each one is sent home, that article could be deleted. But that makes no sense to me. None of the other contestants (besides Mr. Mitzvah) has an article, so why should she? Tinkleheimer 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Singularity 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Model who appeared on America's Next Top Model. Did not win the competition and article states nothing else notable about her. Tinkleheimer 00:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Gordon B. Hinckley. Singularity 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BK notability concerns. A mention in Gordon B. Hinckley article should suffice. Article has been tagged with notability tag since May 2007 with little to no progress having been made in establishing notability. SESmith 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Gordon B. Hinckley. Singularity 07:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BK notability concerns. It appears to be a book made up of collected quotations by Gordon B. Hinckley. A mention on his page should more than suffice. Has been tagged with notability tag since June 2007 with no progress having been made at establishing notability. SESmith 04:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 07:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as entirely made up. Pascal.Tesson 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=101088837&MyToken=4fff113f-dbc8-4b89-b0f7-402582361347 http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupProfile&groupID=100451790&MyToken=51b57c42-8977-4991-9385-d1dc6d1434f1
Those Myspace groups are peer-edited, can those serve as proof? Ryannelson714 04:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, no consensus. Tbo 157talk 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources and no information; practically a blank page with little notability short of a trainer and former champion fighter Thesaddestday 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete helpful and useful isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
-PeterVerkhovensky —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.221.45 (talk) 01:54, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
For the same reason we dont delete articles about napoleon's war campaigns or even stuff about myspace is because the information exists and wikipedia is supposed to act as an encyclopedic entry which at least attempts to document as much as possible. To delete the SWvsST article would be like saying "its ok to destoy some history based on what i feel like now", its simply a biased judgement based on ignorance of the fact.TTMSHU 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect all to their respective albums. Singularity 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing notable about this song. Not released as a single, nothing special happened because of it. Article is empty but for infobox (I would go with ((db-empty)), but I'm giving the article creator a chance to add content). Image used is actually the album cover (since there is no "song cover"). Giggy Talk 03:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Giggy, your opinion on the music is utterly of no use here. Please stop providing it.)
I am also nominating the following related pages, which are in the same situation, created by the same person:
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these places seem to be notable, much of the detail in the article is unsourced, and the few sources / external links that are provided do not seem to be reliable sources. Most of the wikilinks to this article are from its inclusion in three Pennsylvania county nav box templates (so every place in those counties now links here). Once those are eliminated, it is linked to from very few articles. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, no assertion of notability. Tango 15:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very difficult to red page on the Staunton Mall, a non-notable dying mall in Virginia. Mall fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this necessary when we already have List of artists who reached number one on the Hot 100 (U.S.)? This would be better served as a category. For example, we have Category:Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles and Category:Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs number-one singles. If this is kept, it should probably go under Category:Billboard Hot Rap Tracks number-one singles. Spellcast 03:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable fighter (no fights), limited google hits; prod declined NeilN 03:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Few sources available to verify claims of 'holiness', and one of those sources is a near-verbatim copy of this article. Given its hibernation period of more than a year (except for vandalism), it seems unlikely more sources can be found and the article won't improve. - KrakatoaKatie 08:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for PROD-deletion in August 2007 of an article discussed at AFD in December 2005 with an outcome of keep ... procedural nomination. The original AFD was brought with the reasoning "Vanity article on obscure person", obscurity based on a low number of Google hits. The re-nomination for deletion is accompanied with the rationale "This article has been tagged as lacking souces for over a year. Articles require independent, reliable sources verifying their content and are presumptively original research in their absence." The if it lacks sources it must be OR reasoning appears to be on the rise lately, something which I do not at all agree with. Nonetheless, the article has sat essentially unchanged - and unreferenced - since it's 12/2005 previous trip here. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that this topic is inherently a novel synthesis. — TKD::Talk 17:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this article can be saved. There are versions in the history that are better than the current one (if anyone reverts to a different one, please make sure to add the AfD notice). The problem is that, though this is a good topic for a history essay, it's not an encyclopedia topic unless what the various people discussed here have in common is clear and incontrovertible. I think it can't be; I've looked for sources (perhaps not as hard as you will, so feel free to prove me wrong on this), and all I can find are Ohio pride-type websites and opinionated pieces about corruption in the Ohio Republican party. This could be a subsection in Ohio, since no one would deny that the sheer fact of Ohio's 8 presidents is of interest, and if the corruption charges could be sourced one could imagine an article History of the Ohio Republican party in the nineteenth century, or some such, that would detail them, but as it is, this is original research and either not NPOV or, essentially, trivia. I'm interested to hear other opinions. Chick Bowen 02:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This underwent AFD consideration in May 2006 with an outcome of keep; in August 2007 it was nominated for deletion via the WP:PROD path ... therefore, this is a procedural nomination. The May 2006 AFD was brought on the reasoning "One of the unsourced, and at this time externally unverifiable drinking game articles listed in a mass deletion" relisted on AFD individually. The Aug 2007 PROD reasoning consisted of "Article does not establish notability, violates WP:NOT." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 06:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation here, please ask me if you need any more details (or correct me if I'm wrong ^_^) Thanks, Majorly (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD relist as directed at this DRV. There is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Harry Potter for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. The article also fails as a list, such as not including unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources per Criteria for inclusion in lists and not adhering to that criteria with reliable source material. With AfD #1 closed after ten hours and AfD #2 closed because AfD #1 was not taken to DRV, please keep this Afd #3 open for at least five days. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that these apply here but in my opinion, that's how the deletion guidelines consider original research. [[Guest9999 21:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Comment on the sources added to the article so far I think that a lot of the don't actually meet WP:RS a lot of them are things like the Harry Potter Lexicon - a fan site which doesn't meet WP:RS, [74], [75], [76]; Mugglenet - another fansite [77], an Emma Watson fansite, [78] as well as one which is just a dictionary definition,a site where anyone can post content - [79], self described blogcritics [80], a blogger for a minor newspaper [81], things from the authors and continuity editors of the books (if everything an author described warranted and article... etc.) [82], [83], there are also several sources which take the form of a quiz on sopell names which don't actually give any information except for what the spell names supposedly mean they are on the BBC but I'm not sure if this kind of childrens quiz qualifies as an article endorsing source [84], [85], [86], then there is what I think is another fansite [87] - but it's a 'chat' with the author anyway. I think that just leaves the book "Wizard Words: The Literary, Latin, and Lexical Origins of Harry Potter’s Vocabulary" which does not make for multiple secondary sources as layed out in WP:NN. [[Guest9999 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
. That is the criterion for assessing reliability. The target audience has nothing to do with it. Are you claiming that the BBC did not check these pages for factual errors and legal issues as thoroughly as any of their other pages? Are you claiming that the Huffington Post does not check for factual errors? The Japanese press? Rowling herself? Then finally, we have the published book, which you quite rightly didn't even try to attack (as you would have failed miserably). So after all that, and after giving you every possible advantage and swinging every debatable point your way, you've managed to write off TWO sources. So we have 13 left. Your serve. Happy-melon 08:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
Delete - I am not convinced that sources have been found that show that the topic meets the primary notability criteria; there is also none of the real world content mentioned in the specific fiction criteria. Almost all of the more reputable sources mentioned seem to refer to spells as an aspect of something greater and notability is not inherited. The magic in Harry Potter covers spells and I think that is sufficient. As it is the current article is full of original research especially the etymology entries which seem to be new synthesis of published material by editors, if editors think that in the future more sources and information will become available then that might be a good reason to userfy the article but not to keep it as a part of Wikipedia. [[Guest9999 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a rather indiscriminate list of information. These artists are primarily notable for reasons other than their name starting with "Young" or "Yung". Spellcast 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete 5 deletes and 3 keeps. The keep rationales were not given as much weight because they were based on supporting the content of the article and not Wikipedia policy.--Jersey Devil 04:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because, as the article itself states, it's nothing but a "detailed descriptions of chapters in the graphic novel Watchmen." That's it, just an abridgement of fiction. This violates WP:FICTION and WP:NOT, not to mention copyright law, as there is no fair use justification for copying story elements without a transformative, real-world informative context. Watchmen, a featured article, already contains a sufficiently descriptive summary of the graphic novel's story, so there is nothing that needs to be merged. Postdlf 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by author request.. Carlossuarez46 05:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended deletion per WP:NOT#INFO. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. @pple 17:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a non-notable catalog showroom chain in Pennsylvania. Tagged for importance and orphan since April with no improvements. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1 patent nonsense, g3 vandalism. Come on, "Claymore Research Association of Pennsylvania (CRAP)"? "Franz Beckenbauer Institute"? NawlinWiki 16:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax article about a supposed Nobel Prize winner, was tagged speedy but despite much debate suspected or real hoaxes are not speedy candidates. Carlossuarez46 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 18:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor TV actor, no starring roles anywhere. PROD tag added, undeleted by User:Lectonar after being contested. Should be a speedy, really. Calton | Talk 01:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We thank you for brining this to our attention, and we realize that Seth only appeared on television as a child, be he is also a prominent model in his home country of Trinidad and Tobago. We ask that you please not delete his page as he is still continuing with his modelling career. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.95.23.100 (talk) 12:49, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Singularity 05:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate collection of info, so violating WP:NOT#INFO - ALL events in ALL sports? There is already Category:Sports events or even Category:Current sports events available instead Paulbrock 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that there is a lack of reliable sources to establish notability. — TKD::Talk 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourceless bio on non-notable vanity-press author. PROD tag added, but removed without comment by anon IP. Calton | Talk 01:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
also at www.dogmatika.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 14:52, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
"His debut novel, Mr. Overby is Falling (PublishAmerica), was favorably compared to Fight Club and American Psycho" this is my favourite line. I've been unfortunate enough to read that book and if some respected critic compares it favourably I'll eat my hand. Can anyone find a reference for such a claim? And if it is out there, have they researched who said it?
Don't think any of those are PRO reviewers (but I don't think that the article said that they were).
http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655
http://awriterscult.com/community/showthread.php?t=14772&page=4
http://www.weirdears.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=42296
http://uk.geometry.net/search_ad.php?mode=books&searchtype=list&search=R399J77RLML7ES&productname=Best%20thrillers%20of%202006
www.librarything.com/work/7528
blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=82916927&blogID=142039761&Mytoken=A9
The big seems to be here: http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1655
"Obviously Mr. Overby is a dark and at times unpleasant and horrific book. There are hints of Bret Easton Ellis (particularly American Psycho) but also Chuck Palahniuk (who is a big fan of yours) and Jean Paul-Sartre (particularly Nausea)." -Peter Wild
"A few of my friends first latched on to you as a result of spotting you mentioned on the Chuck Palahniuk website. How do you feel about all of the fans you've garnered as a result of the Chuckmeister's patronage? " - Peter Wild —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:08, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
* Neither of these sources give 'favourable' reviews in comparison. They say that there are elements of similarities, but these do not favour Tyree's writing over Fight Club or American Psycho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.13.1 (talk) 10:38, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong- I actually now lean toward deletion. He isn't that notable. But, there is a lack of civility here and despite the fellows lack of notoriety there is no need to to get snarky. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk) 21:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's Tyree's own, as it were. That suggestion has been in the article since it's inception. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.76.154.130 (talk)
This 76.7.196.230 appears to be his ip 63.76.154.130 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2007/04/26/260407_mif_perverted_feature.shtml
http://www.berlingske.dk/kultur/artikel:aid=900252
http://www.wordriot.org/template_2.php?ID=1177
http://www.serpentstail.com/content_item?id=136
63.76.154.130 19:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because same person and content:
Possible hoax or semi-subtle attack pages with same content and creator. I cannot find verifiable references, though conceivably that is due to the age and college/minor league nature. Parts seem dubious, but organizations mentioned do or did exist. There are archival references to San Jose baseball Rich Guardino playing 1974-1977 as Hall of Fame inductee in 1997, versus the article's claimed playspan of 1966-1968 and induction in 2004. One claim is clearly inaccurate: the Little Falls Mets existed from 1977-1988, so Guardino could not have spent 1969-1971 there. On the WP roundup, fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Michael Devore 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 03:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just another business executive, and also unreferenced. Note too the heavily self-promoting tone. Biruitorul 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources. If someone can find suitable sources, feel free to create a rewritten version, citing those sources. — TKD::Talk 01:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Practically unreadable screed about some anarchists. The single "source" only has one Google hit that I can tell, which doesn't inspire much confidence. I see no real notability, and no hope of salvaging the article. Biruitorul 00:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
g-hits. -FlubecaTalk 01:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 04:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author with one published book who fails to meet notability guidelines UnfriendlyFire 00:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as G11 (spam), copyvio of forum post, and A7 non-notable web site.
Delete it is not entirely clear what this article is about but whatever it is it's not notable and the spam links have been removed so that we're no longer invited to click them and "donate". It's been speedied under a few different names several times but keeps coming back so here it is for the community to decide. Carlossuarez46 00:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm confused; you were the one that deleted the first version of this page, citing CSD. Why does this second incarnation not get speedied as well? I had already tagged it as such, and you replaced it with this. GlassCobra 00:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Adding references to the article, though, would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 08:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even the tournament he won doesn't have an article. #311 in list of highest grossing golfers -- in a sport which tends to be dominated by a few people for decades. Scott.wheeler 00:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 02:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.nut-meg 00:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge with main article. If they keep reverting, the page can be protected. --Hdt83 Chat 01:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Hdt83. Dbromage [Talk] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unsourced POV, so not worth a merge. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge with the page for the band.nut-meg 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge If they revert it again, just give them a link to this AFD (If it passes) -FlubecaTalk 00:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Flubeca. Dbromage [Talk] 04:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Cephalic Carnage. Given the article's history, the redirect will be protected. — TKD::Talk 01:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical stub for member of a barely-notable heavy metal band; no sources seem to exist which discuss him in particular; article is mostly unsourced personal opinion. Eleland 00:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pakistani charter airline fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 00:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedy delete under G11— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairboy (talk • contribs)
Advertising, not encyclopedic or notable Eran of Arcadia 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the entry was improperly listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 21. Some comments not added directly to the article's own AfD page were not recorded. Dbromage [Talk] 01:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete remove ths soapbox advertising or delete it.Rlevse 01:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 08:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO, unless having sex with your sister is a valid niche. Has only been in the industry for six years and doesn;t seem to have done anything notable. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 23:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 02:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable band Wtimc3 15:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one album, no indication that it had success there, no sources and I have also concerns that some parts have been cut and paste.--JForget 01:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G4 by User:Oscarthecat This is the 3rd time that has been deleted per speedy nomination. Non-admin closure.--JForget 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and defamatory Somebody Else's Problem(aka Alethiophile)Ask me why 19:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]