The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:39Z
Biography of non-notable artist "(also known as "Zan," "Wren" and "His Majesty")" who created a comic, the significance of which is not established.
The result was Redirect to List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:39Z
This is a fictional character that is not significant enough to have its own page. All of the important, non-trivial information is already at List of Xiaolin Showdown characters. This article may have been created in violation of WP:POINT after a major character from the series was nominated for being unsourced. Jay32183 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep the rewritten version. - Mailer Diablo 01:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very NPOV, unnotable, poorly written, tone bad, unreferenced etc. Carpet 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten at this point with new information and substantial references (NASA, Harvard, Univ. Toronto, MSNBC, Discover Mag. etc.) Kevin Murray 19:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:40Z
Given the size and scope of the Catholic Church, there are literally thousands of cardinals who could be listed here. The inability to maintain such a list, as well as the list's uselessness(List of cardinals includes all living cardinals, so by definition any cardinal not listed there is deceased) clearly qualifies this article for deletion. Hemlock Martinis 00:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:41Z
Spam article. Created (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Prive&oldid=70971294) for spam purposes. Created by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/209.212.105.164 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Webnetservices Both users (the same person) have only edited this page and have put in such nefarious spam as editing the link to the casino group to read "Online Casino Group Official Site", and inserting other spam. The IP reverses to South Africa, home of Grand Privé group.
There are about 90 microgaming casinos owned by dozens of companies (casino list here: http://www.microgaming.com/pjncasino.php). All the 90 casinos are almost identical apart from colour schemes and different websites. There is therefore no cause to comment on any one particular group unless special notability can be established - this article says *NOTHING* that isn't true of other microgaming casinos, and is therefore a redundant article. This company is privately held, non-notable, nothing useful to say other than act as SEO-bait for this company.
Nssdfdsfds 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z
Clearly spam. User has added this casino group with obviously spam/marketing company text, and also added it to the Microgaming page. User has added multiple links to the company's casinos. Without doubt added by an employee or agent of the subject of the article for SEO purposes. Nssdfdsfds 22:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not spam at all. the jackpot factory group is a using microgaming technology, therefor the link from the microgaming page is legit as well as the text published.
i can see no difference between this page and other group of casinos that are linked from the microgaming page.
Niv.
Hey - no one is trying to hide anything, i'm not sure why are you calling me a spammer though: all i said is that there is no difference between this page and other Microgaming's groups pages. if you think it is for seo reasons you can always delete the links to the 4 casinos, either than that, it is exactly like the other pages, therefore, in my opinion, not spam at all.
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:42Z
Page devoted to single company, containing no information beyond wikilinks of their product types and a link to the company in question - Davandron | Talk 19:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:44Z
Non-notable. It certainly cannot be verified. Proposed deletion deadline was passed yesterday Lajbi Holla @ me 00:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing incomplete deleion nomination by an IP user. No stance at this time -- saberwyn 01:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tae Bo. - Daniel.Bryant 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a disambiguation page of misspellings of 2 things. Does this warrant a page on Wikipedia? Montchav 15:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:45Z
Non-notable person. Had a non-speaking role in Shaun of the Dead. Article is unferenced and illustrate no level of verifiable notability. IrishGuy talk 00:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:45Z
Non-notable person. Had a non-speaking role in Shaun of the Dead. Article is unferenced and illustrate no level of verifiable notability. IrishGuy talk 00:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:46Z
I'm not sure this should be deleted, but it definitely should be cut down in length. The author is the Mr. Sauer's wife (see the talk page), and a Google search confirms that Sauer has been active in architecture. What do you think? Does he meet WP:BIO? YechielMan 17:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:47Z
Deleted as A7 twice by two different admins, but contested. Discussion about whether the company met WP:CORP started on my talk page, where I was provided with these links. However, the links consist merely of directory entries, links to online stores where the companies products are being sold, and press releases. None of the links provided were non-trivial. Article was created by User:Scot Lemieux, who according to the article is one of the company's founders. WP:COI case for a non-notable computer animation studio.
Worth reading is the article's talk page, where User:Lexein gives a very detailed response to the article creator's ((hangon)) reason.-- Steel 17:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 20:54Z
Disputed speedy and fails WP:BIO, there are no sources to show how he was notable. In the article it is claimed that his fortune created the Joyce Foundation, however, in Joyce Foundation there is no mention of David Joyce RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z
As another editor pointed out on the talk page to this article, the article itself is a POV violation, granting credit to those named (on uncertain grounds) as "conspiracy realists," and leaving all those unnamed to be regarded as supporting so-called "baseless theories." The article is sourced by a single link to a message board. Without reliable, third-party sources to document the existence of "conspiracy realists," this article should be deleted. janejellyroll 01:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:48Z
Serbian ISP. No assertion of notability made, and it does not appear notable. And just because the company is an ISP (of course, we all love the Internet) does not make it notable. Wehwalt 18:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:49Z
Orphaned article, not so important Htmlism (talk · contr) 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:50Z
A search on Google for "Zydeisland" returns 176 hits. "Zyde Island", the phrase, returns 59 results. Most, if not all of these, are self-promotion on web forums. The article claims the site had 16,000 users at its peak, and I would imagine that 16,000 users would account for more Google traffic. The article is mostly the work of one user (User:Ikahootz), and features such elegant prose as "The game won many awards and a quick google search of "ZydeIsland" will show you this and the amount of fans it did have." and "There has always been rumur it may return some day...". Has anyone else even heard of this? Action Jackson IV 01:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:51Z
User:TeckWiz gave the following justification for the deletion of Survivor 15 in June 2006, before any information was available for the season:
Essentially the same argument applies here. The entire page this time is two sentences: "This season will begin in February of 2008. If there is a season or two after this, then Jeff could retire or host until the show finally is cancelled." Neither statement is sourced or anything beyond speculation. Survivor 16 wouldn't start filming until November 2007, and wouldn't air until a year from now. Survivor 14 just started airing last week. It's just too early for this article. --Maxamegalon2000 01:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. - Daniel.Bryant 08:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New label, no indication of artists beyond the one listed, website is empty, no sign of any releases. Lack of independent reliable sources doesn't help. Has been edited a couple of times (along with some related articles) by User:Bevincampbell, while the label's founder is one "bevin campbell" Chris cheese whine 01:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 20:55Z
Just a list of clubs in a small city- is wikipedia supposed to be the yellow pages Peter Rehse 01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information is welcome for inclusion into wikipedia in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.[12]
The way I see it, the page will evolve over time from a list of external links into a much shorter list of internal links as a result of each section being covered by an article. Pgr94 08:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:52Z
Some person's Naruto fan character. Not a character that appears in the series, so fails WP:FICT notability guideline. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 01:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet the criteria for notability. --- LuckyLouie 02:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:53Z
Obscure, nn diving game. Alksub 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:53Z
Actress appearing in an unreleased film, no indication from third party sources that she meets inclusion guidelines for humans. brenneman 02:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Fairfax County elementary schools. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 20:59Z
It's an elementary school, in Fairfax County, VA. I don't see much of a claim of notability here, nor in any of the other articles on elementary schools in Fairfax County that I will be adding here. Brianyoumans 03:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC) I have added to this AFD the following Fairfax County elementary school articles:[reply]
Brianyoumans 03:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DicDef that has already been Xwikied to Wiktionary. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Chairboy, no assertion of notability (CSD A7). BryanG(talk) 06:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is autobiographical self-promotion as per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. Also fails WP:BIO Planetneutral 03:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:08Z
This page lists not one source, has just over 2000 ghits with the 2 of the top 5 being wiki pages. BJTalk 03:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Alphachimp. Can someone add this to Wikipedia:Protected titles/Deliberate redlinks as it's been deleted 7 times already. MER-C 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article explains what Random Article link does on Wikipedia. Does this warrant a page? lightspeedchick 03:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, positive assertion of nonnotability. NawlinWiki 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected violation of WP:NN. Little information establishing notability lightspeedchick 04:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:08Z
Fails WP:BIO. As a website designer, he was involved in a couple of minor incidents, but nothing that was ever covered in the press, as far as I could tell from a web search. The fact that it's an orphaned article doesn't help its case. YechielMan 04:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:09Z
NN local basketball tournament; self-promotion SUBWAYguy 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:09Z
De-proded. No notability established to meet WP:WEB. Only 163 unique Ghits for "Vertigo Games" and 95 for "Mr. Chubigans". -- Scientizzle 04:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of Saw characters, except Amanda Young. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:12Z
Also nominating the following related pages:
Delete all - Wikipedia is not the place for detailed plot summaries masquerading as articles about the characters. Otto4711 04:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. ~ Arjun 03:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Army officer. Fails to establish notability. mandel 14:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Metacomment: I previously closed this debate as "delete" on grounds of lacking reliable sources, esp based on Huaiwei's comment it is unlikely that there will be many publications on these elite units, let alone the key people behind them. It is difficult to find good sources, but notability isnt based on how many good sources there are in cases like this. But I'm willing to entertain more input on the issue of sources so I'm re-opening debate. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-12 05:14Z
The result was Merge to This Divided State. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:17Z
Non-notable filmaker, possibly vanity page. Holdek (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Rename to Motorola 6800 family. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:20Z
As I noted on the talk page:
The deletion debate seemed pretty bogus to me… there is no "68h" series except for in this article. The debate was carried out carelessly with most of the keep comments coming from folks who obviously didn't follow the links, or have no prior knowledge of these chips. ... Check these google results: 68h microprocessor 6800 6502 -wiki -wikipedia gives 79 hits but the first few obviously mirror us. 6800/6502 gives 342 and 6502/6800 gives 801 (which says something about the relative popularity of the original :vP ).
The term 68h is not used outside of Wikipedia. When people talk about the similarity between the chips they invariably use "6502/6800" or occasionally "6800/6502." The other Wikipedia page referenced in the debate used 68h to refer to the Motorola series only, not the 6502. Indeed the derivation would seem to be an adaptation of 68k; where k is the SI suffix for thousands, h is for hundreds. In this case this should be a redirect page to 6800.
There is almost no activity at this page. The most significant edit since the last AfD was a tag disputing factual accuracy.
Besides the list of processors, this article only asserts that the processors form a family. Although there is no article on microprocessor family, the term generally implies source code compatibility and not merely a shared design team. This article's assertion is analogous to saying the AMD K5 and successors are part of the AMD 29000 family.
My vote: Redirect to Motorola 6800. Potatoswatter 02:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This AfD was incorrectly made and orphaned, accounting for the date discrepancy. Potatoswatter has just added this to the listing. Abstain from me. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 05:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - two-time failed candidate for the House of Representatives. Does not appear to be otherwise notable (although with his common name it's difficult to be sure) and as I understand it we generally don't maintain articles on losing candidates unless they are otherwise notable. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year. Otto4711 05:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor party losing candidate who is otherwise not notable. Otto4711 05:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:21Z
nn Trimjim 05:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person. Does not meet notability criteria.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:22Z
Already prodded and deleted for non-notability. Disputed prod with no reason given. Appears non-notable and reads as promotional. ShadowHalo 05:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. -Docg 02:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple article AFD - middle schools in Fairfax County, Virginia. Not much history or notability, as far as I see. List of additional school articles below. Brianyoumans 05:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before continuing to tout these article's non-notabilty, please do a google search to attempt to find some notabiltiy, as well as read the references for articles that have them. If there are no references, especially references for notabilty, instead of just listing all the articles for deletion, please try to improve the articles by adding references. All pages start as stubs, and then they get improved. That is what needs to happen here. KeepOnTruckin 05:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 11:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read the whole article, but I skimmed it. I'm guessing this fellow meets WP:BIO, but the content is so horrendous as to be ridiculous. I believe that sometimes an article can be so bad that deletion is a reasonable outcome. I know there are those who disagree. YechielMan 06:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This how-to guide (or ad?) is a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. YechielMan 06:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete entire walled garden - sorry, doesn't make sense for Internet search engine technology to be "locally notable". The biographical article for Rob Bertholf individually relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Bertholf (3rd nomination). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:27Z
Autobiographical, non-notable, previously deleted for same reasons
Feeeshboy 06:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article containing two uninformative lines on a single song by a mildly popular regional band, lacking any sort of popularity or notability. Salvagable information better placed in article Fossils. Loom91 06:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and probably fails WP:COI Selket Talk 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD tag removed by anon. Article is a probable hoax. There are no Google hits for "Nexhbudin Nuredini" outside Wikipedia. —Angr 07:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 02:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple AFD More Fairfax County, Virginia middle schools. Notable? I don't think so. Brianyoumans 07:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there should be anything else, it will fit in the merged article until there is time for true WP articles.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally non-notable couple making home videos. But they have the wikisavvy to use a sock puppet to remove the db tag so I will bring it here. -- RHaworth 07:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:40Z
Nominating these articles as what appears to be some sort of complex hoax. None of the claims made on any of the pages check out (a heretofore unknown daughter of Larry Ellison, who's a voice actor? A movie starring James Cameron that doesn't exist in IMDB?). Mass killings could probably make a reasonable redirect to a list of some sort, but the current article is complete bollocks. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails due to WP:OR or WP:COI - self promotion Peter Rehse 07:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's all wikiGreek to me dadadata 00:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Well, I don't know if anyone's transwikied it, but they've had sufficient time. They can always ask an admin for the source. yandman 15:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a miscellaneous collection of information. An up to date bibliography might just be allowed but one from 1885? -- RHaworth 07:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 02:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a soapbox or an indiscriminate collection of information. #39,476 "best seller" on Amazon[33]...so until we write articles on the 39,475 that are better sellers, the only reason this article seems to exist is to promote conspiracy theory misinformation. Say NO to spam. MONGO 07:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete; possible merge to Air America Radio - please discuss on talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:43Z
Air America-Gloria Wise loan controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Please keep this article. It remains relevant, as the NY Attorney General's investigation is ongoing.
The result was speedy as ((db-author)), as noted below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific theory with no mainstream acceptance verifiable sources. Pak21 08:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No more notable than the average University professor, thus fails WP:BIO. Deprodded by anon without comment as a mass deprod of 5.5 day old prods. Pak21 08:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A8. FreplySpang 10:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable festival. Deprodded by anon as a mass deprod of 5.5 day old prods without comment Pak21 08:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a single school - there has been no improvement in the article since the last debate - the same concerns remain. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun hang do for the first debate.Peter Rehse 08:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete; possible merge. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:45Z
Purely a news item, this is not encyclopedia worthy, merely newsworthy. Article belongs on Wikinews. For an extended reasoning which I do wish to repeat here, see the proposed guideline WP:NOTNEWS and it's talk page WT:NOTNEWS. This incident fails several of the points which would raise it from being merely an interesting news story to being part of the lasting historical record. (p.s. already listified on List of terrorist incidents in the United Kingdom.) Zunaid©® 08:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AFD done with now? Looks like a keep to me.Hypnosadist 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN online game, fails WP:WEB, article content is just an explanation of game mechanics. Percy Snoodle 09:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax: no evidence this person is on Million Dollar Baby or that any other of the claims in the article are true. Author is a serial vandal. Gwernol 17:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy promotion of a real estate agent of dubious notability. Does an appearance on Million Dollar Listing make her significant? Or selling a house to Tom Cruise? My feeling is no, but it's not completely obvious, so I brought it here. FreplySpang 10:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Twenty-eight (card game). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:46Z
In the running for most blatant advertising, spammy, vanity, missing-the-point article of the year. Take a look, EIGHT external links to the same promo domain! My goodness. 2005 11:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to be about a made up drinking game. It receives no Google Hits that I can find. It is non-notable and is possibly a hoax. It contains no references Maustrauser 11:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 01:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:57Z
Contested prod. It fails WP:CORP in English (and I don't know the correct Portugese name to check any further). Prod contested by 68.39.174.238 saying "Not a corporation, rather an integrated bar, the lack of Google hits is a result of not knowing it's Portugese name, NOT it's "lack of notability". No verifiable evidence has been added to the article - so I say delete. Mereda 12:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable local political activist. Contested speedy (see talk page). NawlinWiki 12:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles have begun to appear for Candidates for Electon to Young Republican National Federation written by several users. Such persons are notable to those searching for Republican persons. Djtierney 13:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn, no delete vote. PeaceNT 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substub with no useful information and no relevant sources. Lingered in that state for more than a year. Little chance of turning into a real article in the forseeable future. Latebird 12:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently improving the article, should be delete-proof in a while. I hope. Totnesmartin 21:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:50Z
Subject of article does not meet notability guidelines of WP:BIO. Nv8200p talk 12:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ~ Arjun 04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete list of politicians better served by the articles in Category:Members of Australian Parliaments by term. This article was created by cutting out part of List of Australian politicians when that page was proposed for deletion. Scott Davis Talk 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, no independent sources given. Jvhertum 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Random list of some famous Australians with no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion Scott Davis Talk 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment' This is where notability raises more questions than answers .... by what criteria? I suggest the potential edit wars and arguments about what consistutes a notable australian is a dangerous road to travel - I would support golden wattles list of lists - at leas there is a handle that be hung tighter and less arguable notability criteria... and it would get around the issue - next mentioned - SatuSuro 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete ~ Arjun 14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Represents a neologism and violates WP:NOR - only 5 hits from google[38], one of which appears to be a rival claim to primacy of the term here Mcginnly | Natter 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion overturned on WP:DRV and brought here for a full discussion. My opinion is below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 05:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a web directory. This information is just a reprint of the data in Airport and Facilities Directory. There are already several web sites (airnav, etc), which provide this type of on-line interface to the AFD data, using automated conversion of the FAA data feeds. Manually maintaining yet another copy adds no value, especially since it largely duplicates Category:Airports in Ohio -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:52Z
A bio for a postdoc? This is a classic vanity page and is not notable per WP:BIO. Mnemopis 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(un-indenting) The criterion stated in Wikipedia:Notability is reliability, not "respectability" at the level of peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Science. (and as I mentioned before, no one is claiming Sandberg is notable as a scientist, so if that's what you're suggesting it's a strawman--what would you consider a reliable source on the subject of transhumanism?) TV news programs and magazines like New Scientist would in my understanding be considered reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I think a notable ezine like BME would also be considered reliable in its specific subject area of body modification, although this one might be more of a gray area. Hypnosifl 00:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:53Z
Autobiography of nonnotable wrestling person. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---Don Coss opens the show up. He tells us that we missed a mixed tag match with Steve Doll & Ginger vs. Scotty the Body (Raven) & Veronica since we weren't at the arena live. No result is given. He announces the Southern Rockers (Doll & Rex King) are leaving the PNW to go on a world tour and their last appearance will be January 27th at the Sports Arena and there will be a big party. http://www.kayfabememories.com/TapeReviews/portlandtv/pnwtv11390.htm
Previous Managers: Diamond Dallas Page, Beulah McGillicutty, Kimona Wana-Laya, Chastity, Francine, Tori, Terri Runnels, Lucy, Alexis Laree, Lori Fullington, James Mitchell, Mike Samples, Veronica Lane, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0506610/bio
World Championship Wrestling
In early-1991, "Stunning" Steve Austin moved on from the USWA to Atlanta-based World Championship Wrestling. Initially, Austin was managed in WCW by a woman named "Vivacious Veronica", http://www.popstarsplus.com/wrestling_men_steveaustin.htm
The result was Merge to Gomer (Bible). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:54Z
This article definitely fails WP:NEO and probably fails WP:No original research. Unscientific, unreferenced, unverifiable, and racist to boot. Jsorens 14:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Wamper
Ampligen entry contains big mistakes (e.g. Ampligen phase III trial for CFS was completed in 2004, Bioclones' marketing rights are being challenged by Hemispherx Biopharma, Ampligen raw materials are no longer manufactured by Ribotech) and lacks relevant indispensable elements (e.g. the results of the phase II and phase III trials for Ampligen for CFS, relevant Ampligen patents)while containing a lot of irrelevant material (patent to infuse tobacco ). The serious side-effects that are referred to lack correct evidence. The link that is offered is a testimony of one person who cannot even prove that her problems were caused by Ampligen... It's a hopeless task to correct all the mistakes and the set-up of this entry, so someone should start from scratch. Well, as I don't feel called upon to contribute, let me suggest that someone who is called upon to contribute to compare the Wikipedia Ampligen entry with the information in the following fairly dependable research report http://www.boenningandscattergood.com/research/CI/HEB%20%282006.12.1%29.pdf and in the Sec filings of Hemispherx Biopharma http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000946644&owner=include I for one, as Ampligen is an experimental drug, would wait for an EMEA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/human/epar/eparintro.htm or FDA equivalent. Wamper 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the Ampligen entry, I want to say that to me it is not credible that Thedreamdied on the one hand knows all the things he knows, and doesn't know all the things he has wrong on Ampligen in his article. It's clear to me that Thedreamdied's aim was not to write an informative, well-balanced, well-documented article on Ampligen, but to discredit Ampligen by stating e.g. that it has serious side-effects, a false and defamatory statement, or by stating that "As of 2007, a new trial is recruiting" while, in order to suggest that the completed phase III will not be sufficient for the FDA, Thedreamdied "forgets" to add that this concerns an open label protocol study, carried out to obtain additional safety data (Phase 3 studies), that are typically used when the controlled trial has ended and treatment is continued so that the subjects and the controls may continue to receive the benefits of the investigational drug until marketing approval is obtained. http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/drugsbiologics.html. Donklo 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:59Z
The result was merge both to Dreamgirls. Sandstein 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating: Deena Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
Dreamgirls is a great play and movie and all, but there's nothing here about either character that isn't or shouldn't be included in the articles on the musical or the Dreamgirls movie. I'd say redirect both to Dreamgirls. FuriousFreddy 03:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The only claim to notability is being a "Bryce Select award" winner, but that award's importance or even existence is unverifiable due to a lack of sources. Sandstein 16:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and WP:NN. Unencyclopedic and non notable conspiracy theorist. Strothra 16:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Insufficient and illogical reasons given for deletion. The subject is an accomplished, award-winning digital artist as well as web designer for one the most visited and visible websites on the internet. Wikipedia has plenty of entries of digital artists whose works hasn't been seen by one tenth as many people as Neff, you'd better start by asking for all those entries to be deleted first. Your last argument doesn't make any sense, since Neff is a web designer and graphic artist, not a conspiracy theorist. TimothyHavelock 21:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Conspiracy theories
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 02:59Z
My original stated reason for putting a prod on this page was "Articles on manipulative tricks and how-tos of this kind are inappropriate for Wikipedia. It also constitutes original research." User:Rich257 removed the tag, stating "Disagree with prod, this is reference and hence not OR. It is a mathematical method. It may not be notable however". This is simply wrong, as WP:NOR clearly explains that references must be reliable, and in this case the reference is just a discussion forum. --C S (Talk) 16:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Bella Morte. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:56Z
Delete, possibly redirect to Bella Morte per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleed The Grey Sky Black Avi 16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for the same reason:[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 01:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this pass Notability? Avi 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as a stub. PeaceNT 03:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF), now transwikied to Wiktionary. Robotman1974 22:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub that could be turned into a decent article. The fact that it is bad shape is reason to tag it for cleanup, not deletion. --Selket Talk 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 21:58Z
Procedural lifting after I removed the speedy del request. No opinion myself. Cowman109Talk 22:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
198.138.41.77 22:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete; possible merge. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:01Z
Someguys blog. Not notable website. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:02Z
Hoax article. Gives no evidence from reliable sources that he is actually a motivational speaker. No evidence of notability. A previous version of the page (mid-January) listed three motivational books by him that appear not to exist. (Removed here). The website listed in the article, pyramidskeem.com, does not seem to actually sell those books or anything by him. When it functioned last, it was offering punk rock items. He claims a connection with QVC that can't be verified on Google. EdJohnston 17:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect. -- RHaworth 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the C in chemical and S in society are not capitalized, created a new article for this with same content pogi 17:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as copyvio. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 03:01Z
I really can't tell if this is notable or not. Ideogram 18:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that there is not sufficient substantial coverage by reliable sources. Sandstein 16:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, see below previous discussion copied from Deletion Review Jisher 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article concisely states the firm description and scope, with no self-promoting gratuity, and provides unbiased 3rd party references. The article provides a brief synopsis of “notable” existing and proposed buildings. The article also provides a non-promotional history timeline, which is informative and educational to an architectural firms progression. Please see my user page for additional info. Thanks! Jisher 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an additional reference to KKE’s involvement in the Mall of America and updated the KKE Architects, Inc. page. As for the architectureweek reference, I simply provided this to indicate what this firm specializes in (as there are many various aspects to this profession). Architectureweek is a free online weekly newsletter with a free directory that is derived from the wiki “Archiplanet.org” website. I could refer the article to the KKE website for the same information, but I thought that would appear too self-promoting. And to address your comment that some of the sources only cite one instance of mention to the compnay, it is not uncommon for these design professional's to be briefly credited. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact the architects routinely rank as one of the least unhappy and lowest paid professionals. One reference does not indicate KKE, but Howard F. Thompson, whose firm/work was acquired by KKE. Also, I noticed someone deleted the pages content…I believe this should not have been done. As stated in wikipedia’s deletion review process “While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it…” Jisher 22:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, yes. RHaworth recomended I place it here for review. Here is the brief history on my attempt at this article: The article was first posted on 2-2-07, and this was my first ever wiki attempt. That article was speedily deleted by Chairboy. I revamped the article and reposted it on 2-8-07, but it was then speedily deleted by RHaworth who indicated it was "reposted spam". The thing is, I believe he was quick on the gun and must have reviewed the first (2-2-07) artcile deleted by Chairboy, as he made mention of references only in the original 2-2-07 version. I tried to make him aware of this, but he insisted I move this to deletion review.Jisher 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point of the lack of mention, but as I indicated above, acknowledgment of the design team is often very brief, if at all (for most projects). I will due my best to keep an eye out and include additional interview references and the such (if consensus/admin. decides to keep).Jisher 21:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YachielMan: There are very few architectural firm articles available for reference that I could find as an example of format. As stated in my user profile, I choose to loosley model the KKE article from the semi-longstanding “Skidmore, Owings and Merrill" article. Jisher 06:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aaronbrick: Yah, I tried yesterday to add a link within the Mall of America upper right facts box...but for some reason it does not show up (I'm pretty fresh to this). If you have the time, could you elaborate on what I may be doing wrong. Thanks Jisher 06:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess being the architect of the Mall of America isn't very notable. I give up...no more wiki's for me. This site has no consistent consensus, and is just plain vanilla. It's no wonder the articles I read here continually fail to comprehensively cover their topics. Too many (wannabee) chefs in the kitchen.Jisher 21:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. CobaltBlueTony 18:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:03Z
Pretty much this ENTIRE ARTICLE is based on http://www.bryancore.org/bsg/ alone, indeed, there was copyvio from that site until earlier today. As I thought there was reasonable consensus (50% spontaniously suggested merging) in the last afd), and Talk:Created kind), what parts of this article are verifiable and not single-source have already been merged with Created kind, but the changing of this page to a redirect proved controversial, so I ask you for permission to delete a page (making it a redirect, of course) where all the verifiable, notable material is already merged. I'd also like to point out that neither article is well-maintained (check the logs - edited maybe once a month), so merging them will make them more maintainable by focusing what minor effort there is. Adam Cuerden talk 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC) •[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any verifiable evidence from reliable sources that this republic exists, other than the information given on the website linked in the article. Werrington Downs, the location given for their "consulate", is landlocked, and the website does not give any location for the islands themselves, so I think WP:WEB applies, unless there is some external evidence that this is more than just a website. The Anome 19:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:04Z
I doubt that the term is used in the sense specified in this article. Google search only gives references back to wiki or rather general connotations of new+Bolshevik. Thus the article appears to lack encyclopediatic value. Soman 19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Kirby (Nintendo). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:05Z
This is a perfect example of a "game guide" article that belongs on a fan wiki and/or gaming site. RobJ1981 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been prodded, prod removed, tagged for notability, tag removed (along with a "uncategorised person" cat). Article started by contributor called Eryk Elliott who has a redirect to this page on his user page. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:PORN for starters. Definate delete from me. --Richhoncho 19:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Plano Independent School District in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:07Z
This article has been speedied, prodded twice, and this time hit with a notability tag. As it has been prodded twice I am bringing it here for debate. I have no opinion either way, save that it would be helpful if we were consistent in our dealing with schools. FWIW, I brought a primary school to AfD only to see it survive. As I say, consistency would be nice --Richhoncho 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list is patent nonsense, does not define inclusion criteria, some people on the list are not peacetime vets in any way, shape, or form L0b0t 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Adding sources or at least showing that they exist would have been helpful, given that the nomination was based on WP:CORP W.marsh 17:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:CORP. Nv8200p talk 20:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Loudoun County Public Schools. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:09Z
Mulitiple AFD: Today we are in Loudoun County, Virginia for another batch of humdrum middle schools. Schools out? Brianyoumans 20:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Brianyoumans 20:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 04:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is bs. Wikipedia is not the place for bs. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 20:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete WP:CSD#G4. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to verifiably demonstrate this company's notability per WP:V and WP:CORP. The article was speedy deleted[56] and a variant, Isnin.com (lower case "c"), was deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isnin.com A. B. (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 03:02Z
Poor-quality, missing most of the songs, non-notable from a minor TV programme produced to fill out air time on a marginal TV channel. Nssdfdsfds 16:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This stub is two years old, and seems unlikely ever to be useful.JQ 04:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Rivers of Blood speech. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:13Z
this person is not notable. That she exists is notable in that it proves the Powell speech was not based on a fabricated anecdote, and the rivers of blood speech is highly notable, but there's really nothing that can be usefully said here that does not better belong under Enoch Powell - she has no notability whatsoever on her own account. Nssdfdsfds 01:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an expert at this, so I am sorry if I have over reacted, but I felt obligied to blank this article and nominate it for deletion.
1. Even if the Golers were found guilty in a criminal case (a statement which is not made in the article I blanked), referring to them as (mildly) "people who mistreat children" potentially opens Wikipedia up to liability for slander in a civil case. (The issue, for example, in a criminal case is guilt or innocent of particular criminal offences, not whether or not they were unsanitary, which could be the basis for a civil complaint.) Or so it seems to me, but then I'm no lawyer either.
2. In the States, there are some rape shield laws to protect the victim who comes forward with allegations that, usually, she was the victim of a sex crime. Even on Court TV, a rape victim's face is not shown. Using this as a baseline (holding Wikipedia to a higher standard, I would argue, would not go amiss), I believe it to be entirely inappropriate to actually list the name of a child would was allegedly sexually mistreated. I believe it to be inappropriate to name the child even if the child is now an adult and even if the Golers were found not guilty in the criminal case. (Naming children might discourage other children from coming forward if they see they will be listed in a Wikipedia article in the future; so it does not matter if the child in this particular case is an adult or not.) Because a child was named in the article (and hence, will always be listed in the article's history), I believe the only cure is a deletion of the article.
Respectfully, BenedictX 23:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment there appears to be a second discussion page for this article here. Flyguy649 18:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC). It was in the discussion page. Flyguy649 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Chick Bowen 20:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I entered the local nickname for it instead of the actual Common Name. Jegnometalkcon 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search of the name (Here) pulls up zero hits. I'm guessing the name is either spelled horribly wrong, or this is a joke. If anybody knows a correct spelling, please move the page. Thanks, Hojimachongtalkcon 00:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:14Z
this is a joke, albeit a well-written one. Seventhsaint 06:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in Huerto in the same way that I believe that Jesus was the son of a laundress from South Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.251.125 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 12 February 2007
The result was keep. Yuser31415 02:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy from talk page: I merged this article into the entry for Grenville, Grenada which was the only article linking to this article. Given the lack of notablity for this airport and the noted potential confusion with Pearl Harbor, I have nominated this article for deletion. BenedictX 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yuser31415 02:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally was going to list this as a NPOV problem, given that it claims the group is just a nasty bunch of corporate types who want to kill the cute little animals, has been written as an attack piece, lacks citations for its claims and what doesn't explain what the group's aims really were. Unfortunately the group is now defunct, and the group's website is now dead. So given that the group no longer exists it's difficult to establish notability for it, and it makes it almost impossible to describe what the group really wanted, so the article is essentially doomed to being a biased piece contrary to NPOV. In other words, it's an ex-group and of dubious notability, and to make matters worse the existing article is contrary to NPOV and probably can't be fixed as the group has disappeared. Nssdfdsfds 18:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (CSD A7) by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Feeeshboy 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of recurring kid characters on Ned's Declassified / List of recurring adult characters on Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:16Z
There is no reason for this page to exist. Suzie Crabgrass is not an important enough character to warrant her own page, and neither are the other characters I am also nominating. Likewise, we have no need to know the streams of unimportant, not referenced information. Additionally, there is no need for the pages now all characters have their own paragraph of the pages listing the kid and adult characters in the show. They are no longer part of the Ned's Declassified toolbar, and therefore are linked to by very few pages. I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:22Z
Google result [61] There is the possibility this is a magazine of some interest. It is mentioned in Achewood, and has published work by Chris Onstad. However, this seems rather trivial. SilkTork 20:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:23Z
I couldn't verify the content of this page. The only claim of notability is a short film [62]. Tizio 20:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nelogism. There was no Sarajevo Civil War, this term has been invented and placed into wikipedia. There was a siege of Sarajevo by Serb forces, not a civil war in the city. None of major media called siege of Sarajevo "Sarajevo Civil War". It's simply unacceptable and unfair to invent non-verifiable terms and insert them into wikipedia. It's against wikipedia's policy. There just doesn't seem to be enough published information out there to satisfy the notability and verifiability guidelines for a Wikipedia article. Please vote on this matter. Bosniak 20:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn since article has been improved to include more sources which assert notability for sure. Flyingtoaster1337 18:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is only borderline notable per WP:BIO. He is often mentioned in the news but apparently only because of alleged improper sexual relationships (e.g. [63], [64], [65]). Since the subject or his publicist has been blanking most of the article and he's only notable due to a single incident, this entry should be deleted. I disagree with the talk page reasoning that "Bruce McMahan is notable on account of wealth combined with the fact that the legal conflict between him and his daughter has made him a public figure" - there aren't that few multimillionaires who are more notable than him. (Google "Bruce McMahan": [66]) Flyingtoaster1337 21:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Type Five:
I agree with Flying Toaster and the Wiki editor who removed this entry last round. Perhaps subject is clearly notable in the mind of poster Exeunt because he is a related party to dispute in question and trying to do damage. How does he know about a PR firm, how was he contacted via email, how is that he refers to the damage to this person's reputation as justifiable in user talk. If this is indeed notable, then Wikipedia should list all wealthy people, and all people who have been accused of sexual impropriety, include all tabloid newspaper and televison content on this database. In my humble opinion, poster is biased with an agenda, not a true contributor to Wikipedia. I am the one who in a good faith edit accidentally blanked the article which I corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Type Five (talk • contribs).
Keep Anything with this much controversy must be notable. The article seems to be suffering from edit wars by interested parties. At this point we have one solid reference, but should have more. The corporate bio is good background, but not sufficient to establish notability. --Kevin Murray 22:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I am not up on all the protocols of Wikipedia as far as signatures and did not post accordingly. I reiterate my original criteria for deletion per official Wikipedia policies and guidelines and believe the response of Exeunt validates my perspective on this. Type Five 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Hope I did the signature thing right.[reply]
Sorry not to reference policies and guidelines correctly. My references on the Wikipedia site were "what Wikipedia is not" along with the policies and guidelines for biographies of livng persons and other guidelines regarding what is "verifiable," encyclopedic in nature, and neutrality. I will try the signature thing again, thanks for the guidance on that.--Type Five 00:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to answer you Kesh. I have sent two lenghty responses regarding your question, but they are not going through due to an editing conflict of some sort.--Type Five 00:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I will try again. Wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living persons presume that the articles can affect the subject's lives (two parties in this entry), show some degree of sensitivity, are unbiased which I don't believe the author is from his comments and references to law firms, etc.), presumption of privacy, criteria for non-public figures, justification, verifiable sources of high quality, etc. Kevin, I am not kidding about anything, I am a newcomer, I admitted that I blanked a page before I understood how to improve an article, and I was unsure of how to do the signature. I will try to keep this neutral however.[reply]
Type Five, my appologies. Welcome! You are wrong on this though, and with all due respect, you are trying to push rope uphill at this point. The best that can be done is to try to diversify the article to demonstrate the subject's finer points. Rich doesn't make him notable, and incest doesn't make him notable, but the two are sysnergistic. Per WP guidelines what is noticed and documented is notable, and this poor fellow has definately been noticed in major way. Good luck with mastering that signature function! --Kevin Murray 01:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kevin. Kesh, I have looked up the London Standard on this site as well as the other sources, they all seem to be cited as tabloid or alternative, but I guess they are sources. To me, this is what Wikipedia isn't.--Type Five 01:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help build this article to include more than the scandal, but don't see much more well referenced information available through the obvious sources. Can we expand the information on his charitable work and his leadership in the investment community? Also, these are at this point allegations from his daughter/wife; how about presenting his side. --Kevin Murray 02:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on discussion on the article page today there is a warning box regarding controversial and potenially libelous content for bios of living persons. In an effort to create an encylopedic quality quality article, the entry is now really reading like a tabloid. The vibrator entry is particularly troublesome. I suppose the subject matter (wealth, sexual accusations, lawsuits)is interesting to some, but I still feel the article is what Wikipedia is not. When in doubt, do no harm.--Type Five 17:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:24Z
This band is a small local band with no record label and no hit singles or albums and none of the band members are notable therefore this band is not notable to be in Wikipedia Joebengo 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Money (Blackadder). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-17 22:25Z
Stub article about a fictional character in 1 episode of Blackadder Fails WP:N. No independent sources other than the BBC webpage for the specific episode . “Leonardo Acropolis Blackadder –wikipedia gets only 76 Google hits. Per WP:FICT, "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction" unless the section would become overly lengthy. A sentence in the article on the episode Money (Blackadder) would be sufficient for this character, so Delete Inkpaduta 21:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-16 03:04Z
Wikipedia is not for original research on Wikipedia. I'd have userfied this content had the author given any indication that they have registered the problem; there's been no reaction to my talk page message and the PROD tag has, of course, been removed. Also delete the images, which are falsely tagged as "public domain", but are GFDL derivative works (and also OR). Sandstein 21:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. If anyone figures out a good way to merge/rename these, that doesn't require AfD. W.marsh 16:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to put Timeline of trends in music from the United Kingdom for deletion, along with all its subpages. These pages are really crap. Maybe redirecting to Music of the United Kingdom would be good, but otherwise the page needs massive reshuffling - the music trends dealt with in these pages is just folk music, and doesn't seem to mention any other sorts of music. I've talked with the article creator, but deletion may be the best thing to do with this, IMHO Montchav 14:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010
1500–1899 | 1900–1949 | 1950–1959 | 1960–1969 | 1970–1979 | 1980–1989 | 1990–1999 | 2000–2010 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Montchav (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list; no criteria to define who's "famous" and who isn't. Wikipedia is not a directory. Extraordinary Machine 22:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The result was keep. John254 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a copy-paste from the USMC website, link is 404 right now, no other sources, 32 Ghits of which most seem to be unrelated. Worthy <> notable, sadly. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nominated on behalf of 68.39.174.238 (talk · contribs) [69] who believes that this article should be deleted as it is indiscriminate. Tra (Talk) 22:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a copy-paste form the cited source, USMC, but site is 404. 7 Google hits, none appear to be reliable sources about this individual. Worthy <> notable. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. and mention this at Bill Simmons where there's already a section for this type of stuff. W.marsh 16:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Dlong 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is non-encyclopedic in nature. All information contained on this article is from on the business' website and adds little to the Wikipedia community. Godmeat 22:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 02:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor political party with the leader not even having an article. There are no references and no sources to show its notability RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasspeedy keep massive nomination of non-related articles is a no-no. `'mikka 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This nomination is part of my attempt to purge Wikipedia of articles that are simply definitions of names, and I am filtering through all in the category starting with 'A'. I am willing to withdraw nominations that are made into valid disambiguation pages, articles or redirects. J Milburn 22:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge back into Psi-Force. Sandstein 16:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nonverifiable reference to Marvel Comics. Absent on the offficial ,website, only 2-3 weird websites. `'mikka 23:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all keepers fail to address the major issue: wikipedia:Verifiability. I am not a deletionist by nature and I diligently tried to search wed wor each and every weird name in the text. NONE. zilch. zero reliable sources. `'mikka 18:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy some time ago. This magazine is not notable, and is written like an advertisement, essentially by a single user. It does not link to any articles with WP, but to several websites outside WP, which is a telltale sign. YechielMan 23:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Ideogram 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the obvious conflict of interest (the author is the subject, as shown in the copyright statement on the image page) there's no real notability here. He's a YouTube contributor. That's it. The only other source in the article is The 9, which is a videoblog, not a news source. Article asserts notability, so I didn't speedy it as another editor requested, but I still feel it should be deleted. Or perhaps I'm too conservative and it could be speedied by another admin. Kafziel Talk 23:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Neutral on this one and it is largely a procedural posting. Was on my watchlist because I removed the speedy tag since it asserted importance. Got a prod tag, which was removed but then re-added, so I sent it here instead. Borderline case might be made for WP:PORNBIO. IronGargoyle 23:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted. Submitted by the User:SSWS Alex Bakharev 23:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]