| < December 2 | December 4 > |
|---|
The result was Delete as the consensus among discussants. Perhaps, as the single dissenting opinion suggests, at some future date the actor might be sufficiently notable for inclusion here. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Julien Baptist. Looks like a vanity page to me(but I could be wrong). Very doubtful notability as a film actor. No sources given for claims to being a contestant on "Nouvelle Star", no third party sources for claims about acting. "notability" tag was removed twice without comments by anon, but no sources were added. The very model of a minor general 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect/merge to Cannabis smoking#Knife Hits. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is something I might expect to find in the far back pages of High Times magazine, but never an encyclopedia. Beyond being presented as a "how-to guide", it also fails to document any kind of a reliable source for the information. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of those sources are articles about Cannabis smoking, which give this method of smoking it a treatment that varies from 1 sentence to 1 paragraph, in amongst a list of other methods. The principles underpinning our concept of notability are that the encyclopaedia should deal with subjects in the same way that the sources do. See User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things. As such, Wikipedia should discuss this method of smoking cannabis within an article on the various ways of smoking cannabis. And — Lo! — we find that Cannabis smoking#Knife Hits already exists and gives this subject the same level of treatment that the sources do. Moreover, the sources don't support quite a lot of the content of the current article, and all of what they do support is already in either Cannabis smoking or Cannabis (drug) itself. So the sources that you've cited support the conclusion that, stripped of the unverifiable content, this is a duplicate article that should be redirected to Cannabis smoking. Uncle G 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person appears to have no notability outside of the show America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9 and a brief appearance on a morning talk show. In general we don't maintain articles on individual reality TV contestants, and I think the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people) at present. —dgiestc 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly a hoax and should be promptly deleted. The text is taken from the article on Aldous Huxley. Many of the words have been simply changed to create a fake article. Leeannedy 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 00:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an indie band that - and I know you'll have trouble believing this - has no sources other than the band's own website. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall Maher does not meeting the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. He was once an editor for the student newspaper of the University of Texas at Austin. Several references can be found to his work online but they are almost exclusively authored by him. References to a Jenna Bush scandal in the article are not significant enough for notability. At best, a reference to Marshall Maher could be made in a section on media coverage of the Jenna Bush alcohol problems within the appropriate article. Leeannedy 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by User:Mailer diablo. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 13:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject per the sports section of WP:BIO. • Freechild'sup? 22:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable whatever it is. An idiosyncratic phrase of a particular industry, perhaps, but no assertion as to its use. Could be partly included in wiktionary in the definition of teaser or abstract or something else. AvruchTalk 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (deleted by Golbez.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this item notable enough to be worth a major re-write on the article ? thisisace 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn, information on article merged to Barbara Reskin. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tagged as advert. I declined because I cannot assess subject's notability. It may just need a rewrite. Subject's works are the main source for the article Don't know which way to go with this, so AfD. Looks like ad or OR. Dlohcierekim 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. ALSO, THERE IS ALREADY AN ARTICLE ON THE United Federation of Planets, this is simply a repetition with slight variations of the version from the Star Fleet Universe of games. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, implemented as redirect to Bajoran to allow for a history merge if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek:Deep Space Nine episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) on pages 16, 49, 156-158. Does that count? I don't own The Star Trek Encyclopedia, sadly. I'm not sure if it's relevant, but there's also a book devoted to this, The Eugenics Wars: The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus is to Keep based on the view that reliable sources can be found and used to improve the article. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek:Deep Space Nine television show articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect/merge to List of Star Trek regions of space once it is created. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear here that mergers of the locations are viable, like minor characters, and would provide sufficient context to retain brief information when any excessive plot summary info has been stripped out. As for redirecting: keeping redirects is cheap, allows categorisation e.g. by series, and prevents existing links from going red. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]"If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context" [...] "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event."
The result was keep. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is completely redundant to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, has no additional useful content, and it is all Original research. The whole page describes an image, and we can just show the image. The exact description isn't relevant to the controversy anyway, only what they were of (Muhammad). Prodego talk 21:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's subject is an apparently non-notable band. The article gives no independent sources and does not assert notability.
Also nominating for deletion for the same reason the related articles:
These articles were created by the same person and consist of the discography of the same band. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should actually be a speedy deletion but user keeps removing templates. Subject in unnotable and the page is only used to show drunken pictures. Mikemill 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Winetype 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article dangerously ressembles a list. Most items would fail the Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide test. They are not notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only merit in a list (as opposed to a category) is that a list can have red links for articles that are needed, but that in turn requires that the missing items should be notable. This one has a few such links, but are they for notable subjects? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasspeedily deleted as copyvio.—Random832 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article about a non-notable musician. No references or assertion of notability, should have been caught on NP patrol probably. AvruchTalk 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claim of notability, spam, advert Nick Y. 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep but cleanup. Davewild (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be promotional. — Yavoh 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Oxymoron83 10:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks any notability, and when entered into google search, it seems to return nothing with the exact heading "June Disciples", not anything related to a gang of any sort, seemingly what this article is about. Eastonlee 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DJ not notable. — Yavoh 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youth footballer, has never played a senior game and is not in the senior squad. So fails WP:BIO for sportspeople. Punkmorten 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was prodded - by another editor - with correct explanation that this is a how-to article in violation of WP:NOT, as well as having no sources - all links that appear to be external are in fact to other Wikipedia articles. Author removed prod notice without any explanation. Your username goes here 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about a California gated residential development built in 1993. Mindmatrix 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While interesting, no 3rd party verification can be found. Not notable. Pharmboy 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a type of prank is uncited & unverfied, and besides, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ginkgo100talk 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) EDIT: This article is not eligible for speedy deletion or I would already have done it. Prod was removed. --Ginkgo100talk 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) article is orphaned with no article linking to it
2) Only one anonymous author
3) This article is just a term definition and belongs in Wiki Dictionary
4) Seems like just any excuse for spam links Fife Club 16:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and recreate as redirect to The Catherine Tate Show characters#Derek Faye. Davewild (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character with no indication of notability, and no sources to establish real world relevance. — Coren (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a biologist but it looks like this is just a neologism. P4k 06:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus between those who see it just as unencyclopedic plot summaries and the opposing view that it is verifiable (and have identified some sources) and can have real life context. Davewild (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Largely originial research and synthesis, fails WP:N, is unattributable and unsalvageably unencyclopedic. If it can be trankswikied to a MacGuyver wiki, it should be. Cumulus Clouds 04:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable small mall in New York, seems to fail WP:RS (I should know, since I tried to source this article before). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Diplomatic missions of Romania. Non-admin closure. Tx17777 23:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diplomatic missions of Romania contains the same information (I think). Delete Romanian diplomatic missions and insert redirect to Diplomatic missions of Romania. Kransky 12:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to The Night the Animals Talked (not by me), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been duplicated using its corrected title--so this exists already on "The Night the Animals Talked", and this one should be removed.
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just a repetition of various plot facts from the Gone With the Wind movie article, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 22:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. discounting the WP:SPA Secret account 02:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article shows no citations for independent, reliable coverage required for notability (WP:N), and has no third-party references for (WP:V). My original prod in October was contested on the grounds that the subject is of historical interest, however see the comments on my talk page here - User talk:Marasmusine#Fishy Deliantra claims - these claims seem to be confused with Crossfire (computer game) (itself of dubious notability, but that's a different matter.) Marasmusine 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the very few really free (free as in free software) MMORPGs around that are still very active. There was considerable development (technical enhancements on the engine, balancement of the game data, addition of new content) for the last 2 years. It so represents a notable continuation of a very old project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmex (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article makes no assertion of real-world notability. Is entirely in-universe plot summary and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, WP:RS WP:OR. Even the parent article Make Way for Noddy doesn't appear to bother linking to it. Verdatum 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Contact me or another admin for restoration once you are convinced the film meets the notability guideline WP:N. Sandstein (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn film - not mentioned on IMDB Mayalld 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Merge into Paul Devlin (filmmaker). Topic has some notability, but not enough for own article. --Son 18:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently awaiting the film's profile to be approved on IMDB. Until then, please feel free to visit our official website blastthemovie.com to confirm the legitimacy of the film. --Bloodybonnie 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would we need to add to the page to make it not viable for deletion? --Bloodybonnie 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted. There are dozens of this type of magazine on the market and there is no apparent reason why this stands out from them. Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:NOTE- Although this appears as a second AfD, there might be a problem with WP:Twinkle and it has been reported. It seems to have been previously speedied, in which case no record will exist unless an admin undeletes the original. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in a neutral fashion and it is factually correct. It therfore sheds light on an area that previously had little light. Chrisjtb 12:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case where is the consistency? Either teh other non notable artcles need to be deleted or thsi one accepted!. Chrisjtb 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs sources to verify its information. A source is mention at the bottom but it is unclear to what extent that source is used or what that source says. I have not been able to find a mention of "Långrocken" through google searches (other than links to Wikipedia). Previous requests for additional sources have been reverted. [18] [19] If the best source is "The story of Långrocken is also mentioned in the autobiography of Ture Nerman", without further information, then the topic appears unverifiable.
It is also unclear whether this attacker is notable in any way. Is a person notable for attacking "several" women in 1893? Modern sources say nothing of him; possibly not all rapists are notable. Fred-J 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not qualify for inclusion under WP:BIO. So she died of cancer, many people do. Many other more famous people died of the brain cancer this young woman died from (Ivan Noble, for one). Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanispamcruft of non-notable person. Article created by subject. No references to establish notability or verifiability. Nobody of Consequence 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school, unsourced, prod tag removed. AnteaterZot 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by ESkog (talk · contribs). — Scientizzle 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable neologism, completely unreferenced, seems to be a reference to a nn martial arts club in Kent, UK [21] Mayalld 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another non-notable elementary school, prod tag removed, sorry to bother AfD with this one. Unsourced. AnteaterZot 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, vandalism. WODUP 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable rude Harland1 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Sources have been added since this AfD started that prove notability. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 13:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, unsourced, page itself says record was unsuccessful. AnteaterZot 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, implemented as a redirect to Crime in India so that content can be merged from the history without breaking GFDL compliance. Sandstein (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Content may be notable but is non-encyclopedic, certainly not deserving of an article of its own. Delete. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This are not flawed arguments. And don't try to disrupt this discussion. This page is purely for debate over the article. I direct attention to this from where other users may be able to know about user Ghanadar's motivations. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no vote-casting policy from me, nor I am anti-Indian. I just want to inform other editors who are interested in the subject. Good editors give vote according to their own judgement. They are not influenced by others. User Ghanadar galpa is busy to spread a dirty propaganda against me and articles I have created. This page is not for discussing about particular editor. So I cannot put much information about Ghanadar here. To know more about user Ghanadar galpa, see this Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 01:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unending and unnecessary list of Christmas films. Christmas is notable, obviously, and its treatment in the media, as a well cited over all discussion, is great. However, this is already done in Christmas in the media, making this list redundant as well as being almost entirely WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Collectonian 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because it is of a similar nature
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created page for a fictional character from the new Tin Man (TV miniseries) that is completely unnotable and total plot regurgitation. Completely unnecessary POV fork. Collectonian 15:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I actually agree with everything the nominator said, and normally would vote delete, but the Afd tag was placed after the author had posted an under construction tag, and the article had existed for less than an hour when tagged. I actually encourage the author to look long and hard at editing the the Tin Man article (currently semi-protected), because I think it will be difficult to create a separate article that survives. Xymmax 15:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as part of an ongoing long-term pattern of hoax and sneaky vandalism by Winksajdl;aslkdjasklj (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count), who has used several other accounts. Uncle G 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Initially tagged as a speedy deletion, but I declined since this does make an attempt to assert notability, and to cite references. However, the links provided don't seem to describe the subject non-trivially/independently and may have issues with reliability (one, for example, is a Tripod site). Still, there does seem to be a possibility that the subject is in fact notable, but, if so, better sources will be needed to substantiate that. — TKD::Talk 14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The orignal article had no content taken from the Geoff Thompson page, again its been edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an advertisement for a non-notable corporation, mostly written and edited by a representative of that company Malangali 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, but not to be kept in present form—The consensus is that the article needs serious changes in tone and content. The article will be so-tagged. I believe common practice is that if the issues are not addressed within a reasonable time (probably a month or so), then it can be brought back here for re-evaluation taking into account lack of change in the article since last AFD. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated purely for WP:COI issues within the article as one editor has bought up on the Moorcroft, also these entries unsourced and notability of these entries are questionable, plus these are nothing but a vanity page as these consists of nothing but a list of trivial information, plus where is the promised cleanup, it dosen't exist
On a note, I want to nominate Moorcroft, but this needs vast cleanup. Charley Uchea (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable book. Hammer1980·talk 17:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable series of amateur videos. Unreferenced Mayalld 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Stub Longstanding stub article has been rapidly grown into a blatant corporate brochure for the company. Several editors seem to have WP:COI issues. Mayalld 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from the article as it stands, the only thing which might establish this person’s notability in Wikipedia’s sense is the un-named and unreferenced “widely published paper discussing the political intervention in Italian media, particularly that of former Primer Minister Silvio Berlusconi.”
Yet a Google search for ‘"Marina Mariotti" berlusconi’ produces only two hits: one to this article and one to a 9Mb pdf which may, or may not, refer to the paper or, indeed, to the same Mariotti. (I didn’t think the download worthwhile.) Apparently not a widely-discussed paper. I think that the article as it stands should be deleted, just as its predecessor was, and that it should only be re-created if very clear notability can be established from the start. —Ian Spackman 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is worth noting that:
The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly non-notable, reads like an advert. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia needs reliable sources to verify which criteria is use for this article. It contains point of views which are potentially WP:OR and non-neutral. So it is better to not write about subject. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria used to describe what a giant-killing constitutes is inherently original research and, per a recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL there's quite a strong consensus for deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
One of the main sources appears to be a book written by Geoff Tibballs entitled "FA Cup Giant Killers", I've added this to the article as a good source. Catchpole (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←There is precedent for this at Polymath, where every Tom, Dick and Harry's favourite genius used to be inserted on the basis that they once did a chemistry experiment or published a book on sailor's knots or whatever. Now only people cited in RS as a polymath remain listed. However, in this case, it brings its own problems. Sports journalists tend to get a bit excitable. If (say) Fulham of the English Premier League, defeated Man Utd in an FA Cup game, I wouldn't be surprised to find an RS that described it as a "giant-killing" and I would expect to see it reported as an "upset", yet it would not be a notable match and in encyclopedic terms shouldn't be included. Yet how could we exclude it without contravening NPOV? I just think this is unrescuable. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this is an oustanding example of a deletion debate. Kudos to everyone involved. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←Bizarre. A part-time amateur team beating a professional league club founded in 1876, five divisions above them isn't a giant killing act? Well that's it (all over again) - a subjective choice. Relativity, subjectivity, arbitrary criteria, that's what makes this whole thing wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of importance/significance. Appears to be about a TV show on a minor Cable TV channel. I would mark it for speedy, but its been around since June 2006. Lastly, talk page was created with "This show ain't coming on anymore so someone should delete the page." Jason McHuff 09:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per WP:CRYSTAL Andante1980 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge→Geography of Kerala—There is not necessarily consensus on how to do the merger, but there is consensus (with dissenting opinions) that the content should be merged as noted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
kayal is a word that means a lake in the Malayalam language which is spoken mainly in one state of India. It is no different than a lake. A kayal is not an English word nor is used extensively in India to mean a lake. The info in the article can very well be merged with Geography of Kerala. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Hello, the burden is on you to show that the word kayal makes any sense at all. You have said that you do not know a word in Malayalam but were knowledgeable enough to introduce that word in the article title!! I changed my opinion to merge and redirect since everyone agrees (including you and Blathnaid) that the article contents need to be merged to some article. The disagreement is on whether the original article should remain or not. Since you are not willing to agree that you made a mistake on that article name, I did not want to pursue the matter further here and take it to the correct forum. The right place to discuss about "redirects" is WP:RfD and hence I will pursue the matter there. I will inform you when I put it there, so that you can put in your comments. The use English does hold up according to this guideline. You were the one who introduced a word like kayal into the article title, when nobody was watching and without knowing anything about what that means. I am just trying to correct that mistake. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus and added references (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mis-named, list oriented, fuzzy topic
1. Lack of citations - this can be fixed and I will do so.
2. Errors - where? what? Please describe the errors you claim are present.
3. Listings of locations which have nothing to do with the article topic. What? Que? Are you serious?
4. The title is meaningless - sorry, that's bs. The title and article scope describes the concept of FHQ:s which are historical facts which certainly has encyclopedic value. The FHQ:s were special, not just where "Hitler spent the night".
5. Original research/breach of WP policy - sorry, that's bs too. The article information is based on the references listed, and I have not personally invented anything. Furthermore, there are similar articles in the German and Polish Wikipedia here: Führerhauptquartier (German) and Führerhauptquartier (Polish).
6. Vague in concept - sorry, you're misinformed or ignorant. Consult history books, the references listed or the wikipedia links above.
If you're still concerned with contents, please constribute and help out with the article. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is redundant and serves no purpose. The Category: Energy in India is exactly what the article is all about ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per arguments made by those supporting that it is not redundant to either category or another article. Davewild (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a redundant article. The information provided here can very well be merged into the article, Rivers of India. If it is a list of rivers that is needed, Category:Rivers of India is sufficient. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actress has appeared in only one very minor role, nowhere close to WP:BIO standards for entertainers. COI seems evident, notability does not. shoeofdeath 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable poker player. Had his 15 minutes of fame during last year's World Series of Poker, but that's about it. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience. P4k 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and renaming should be discussed. Davewild (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A trivial list of published alternate histories doesn't show much importance. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources, which make it impossible to verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically an ad for a website, and the only source for any information in it is the website itself. The article has been tagged for months with a request for sources, but none seem to be forthcoming. I can't find anything on Google or Google news indicating that this is a particularly notable site, and I don't see any evidence that it meets our inclusion criteria per WP:WEB. I suggest we delete it; please discuss. GTBacchus(talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete; consensus to rename—It appears there is a consensus to rename to something more easily understood. I will leave that renaming to a discussion on Talk:List of record labels starting with a non-letter. The main lack of consensus on deletion is between the use of lists vs. categories. Among those arguing for categorization two options emerge: putting everything into Category:Record labels vs. putting into categories such as Category:Record labels starting with A. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An indiscriminate list of record labels. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as per... yeah. What they said. --carelesshx talk 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD A7) by Redvers. I am merely closing this discussion; perhaps discuss with the deleting admin to restore and move (or go through DRV). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert notability, seems to violate MYSPACE. Marlith T/C 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This distinction is not notable. List of neighborhoods is unnecessary. Discussion not balanced. — Yavoh 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was doh! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me I don't have to explain how incredibly non-notable this article is. SeizureDog 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Person does not appear to exist. None of the historical references included actual mention this person. Seems to be fabricated. Wikime25 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hopelessly undermaintained and confused list. First, "humanitarian" and "peace" is a close but quite different descriptors. Second, there are thousands of them around the world. Third, I see nothing in this list that cannot be covered by categories. Laudak 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mask of Zorro movie article. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Mask of Zorro movie article. As such, this material is not appropriate for the encyclopedia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. HitotsuOne 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete- we don't need this existing for five more days. The consensus is clear, as are the facts: this is a somewhat amusing (especially in regards to the reference), but extremely obvious, hoax. -- Mike (Kicking222) 05:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly nonsense, event the image provided is computer generated. When google searched [33] it returns nothing related to what this user is talking about. This isn't quite applicable for speedy deletion, however it should at least be reviewed and debated. Eastonlee 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no arguments for deletion have been made, those arguing for keep have made policy based arguments for keeping. Whether any of these with fewer reliable sources should be merged can be considered elsewhere not requiring a deletion discussion. Davewild (talk) 13:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Large, large amount of cruft. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog (or in this case a menu), and as such we do not need lengthy descriptions of every product on the Burger King menu: they are not independently notable, nor do they help establish the notability of Burger King, nor are any of them an important enough aspect of Burger King to warrant their own articles. Add to that the fact that most of these lack any reliable sources whatsoever, most suffer from peacock terms, and that there already exists an article, Burger King products, that can contain short descriptions of these menu items. - Chardish 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Oxymoron83 10:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
Unified National Nominate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No assertion of real-world notability. Single source provides only in-universe plot summary; no secondary sources to provide critical commentary/reaction. --EEMIV (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 02:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by anonymous IP without leaving a reason. Non-notable food item; being sold by a notable restaurant chain does not confer notability. No notability independent of Taco Bell and not a major enough part of Taco Bell to warrant its own article. Chardish 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - I can't find any independent, reliable sources about this person (her own website is not an independent source of information because she wrote it) greenrd 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about non-notable band was recreated immediately after being Speedy Deleted for not asserting notability. Still fails WP:BAND as well as having WP:COI issues. DAJF 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography. Unsourced. There is some claim to notability, but any article should be created by someone without a conflict of interest. Delete. gadfium 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete—Unfortunately, the proposed merge target itself has been deleted. I am personally not a fan of the present wave of fiction-related deletions; however, in this case, there is not even the saving grace of being verifiable via cited reference. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional tree lacks real world notability, is not cited with secondary sources independent of the subject, and is solely plot summary Pilotbob 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep reasons didn't give a reason for keeping this article, AFD is not a vote Secret account 02:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, lacks a real world context, plot information only, cannot be cited with secondary reliable sources independent of the subject. Pilotbob 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, though I salute After Midnight for erring on the side of caution.--Kubigula (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. After Midnight 0001 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all JForget 01:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, nonsense. This game does not exist, all pages are almost exactly the same, copied from Ape Escape series. This debate also includes, all other pages of this group, list in coming. -Carados 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sole release from Dr Manhattan, also here for consideration. Discussion page contains more debate than the parent article. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Article fails WP:BAND - while they apparently have an album out (also tagged for AfD), the article claims their debut album will be out in March 2008. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW & as well-sourced now. SkierRMH (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a cruise ship, and... well, that's about it. It's a cruise ship. No indication that it has played a significant role in the history of cruise shipping, no indication that something newsworthy happened to or on this ship. All we know about this ship is that it exists. But there is not a single indication, after more than three years, that this ship is notable or encyclopedic. AecisBrievenbus 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable list that fails WP:FICT and is mostly WP:PLOT. Fancruft/trivia mostly. Oddly enough, unlike most minor character lists, this one actually does include a few significant characters, but there appears to be no List of characters in Sailor Moon, so an possible alternative to deletion would be a rename, cull out all the minor characters, and make it a list of major/significant characters instead. Collectonian 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, discounting Tourskin's WP:JUSTAVOTE. Sandstein (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable list of fancruft that fails WP:FICT and is mostly minute WP:PLOT details. Redundant as well, since any notable yokai that appear here are also already better covered in List of InuYasha characters. Collectonian 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Bad faith nom in violaton of WP:POINT. Non-admin closure. NF24(radio me!) 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reference, unvarifiable content. Covered in Nair article. A Long list of unreferenced unvarifiable listing of people.Vvmundakkal 10:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. I had previously closed this discussion as a snowball keep after only five "keeps" but the nominator asked me to re-open it. More "keep" votes were placed since then, so I'm calling this a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not post news stories, regardless of how many front pages it appears on. The case is proven by only one citation after the week of the shooting, which is dated six months ago. Will (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not post biographies of people notable for only one event. The event in question does have a Wikipedia article, but that's articleworthiness is questioned Will (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real informaion is availabe, and it isn't notable. DurinsBane87 19:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cleanup still encouraged, of course. Sandstein (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glorified dictionary. Uncited and ORish for the past seventeen months. Will (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax-like orphaned stubby article Will (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
