< January 22 | January 24 > |
---|
The result was Speedy delete g10, unsourced attack page, author blocked for trolling (see his contribs). NawlinWiki 01:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since no-one wanted this, it's for you to decide.... noteworthy or not?? but this is fact not fiction SimonRebbsell1 01:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell, ask Q103 about the scandal... well, I do work for GCap radio! --SimonRebbsell1 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ask any presenter at:
i work for GCap and know this! so there, no conflict of interest! --SimonRebbsell1 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 19:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reality show contestant Maelwys 00:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Personally I don't think there was much use userfying it since they're not a contributor to the site. -- Steel 14:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be more or less a user page. It's in the first person, and isn't under the person's claimed real name (Guillaume Belfiore). If notable, needs to be completely redone. John Owens | (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. -- RHaworth 15:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin? Let's see... Non-notable, vanity page, spam, little content with no meaningful context, unsourced, etc. Already speedy deleted once, but the template's having trouble staying on the page the second time. adavidw 00:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. HappyCamper 13:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax article, as there are no ghits for this supposed "practice", and the content does not appear to be verifiable. No sources given either. SunStar Nettalk 00:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical posted by its creator (WP:COI), using Wikipedia as a free web space provider. I originally speedied it under WP:CSD#G12 ("Uploader does not assert permission") because the creator added "Copying punishable by law" at the top, and figured WP:SNOW would apply. It has since been edited to put a factual introductory paragraph, but still remains completely untenable as an article, and fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:NFT. ~Matticus TC 00:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference this article gives is to a blog post by one Aza Raskin, son of Jef Raskin, which describes "bracket notation" but states that it was an idea of his father's and previously did not have a name. Later, in the Comments section, the blog's author admits to also being the original author of the Wikipedia article, implicitly identifying himself as the author of this revision. Given that this was only about seven months ago, and that other sources for the method of notation are lacking, it looks to me very much like original research and an attempt at self-promotion. Note that if the page is deleted, the redirect to Bra-ket notation which previously existed there should be restored. – Qxz 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged and redirected. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is kind of hard to explain but it's pretty funny. In any case, I see no hope of this article ever developing to anything more than the current sub-stub: this political party was in fact not a party but a clever way to advertise the Mongolian Barbecus, whatever that is. There is simply no encyclopedic value to the topic other than the trivial anecdote. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, WP:BJAODN candidate. No notability, but not too bad a joke as ad agency products go. --Shirahadasha 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Merge with List of frivolous political parties. --Shirahadasha 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete unless there is evidence that this was covered in British news, in which case I think it would be notable. JCO312 03:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable, we sure don't need 256 million articles on individual IP addresses. NawlinWiki 01:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A prod tag, placed by another editor, was removed. I don't think that an IP address is notable enough to warrant an entry. janejellyroll 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Seraphimblade 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, fails WP:SOFTWARE. ju66l3r 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. di Stefano seems to have created his own article here. it was tagged as a non-notable bio but there's some definite claims, including a small book and numerous articles. I've cleaned it up a bit and added some sources, but I'm unclear on exactly how famous this individual is (he's got something on the order of 245,000 Google hits, mostly for articles he's written on E-Commerce Times which we somehow lack an article on as well. No falsehoods or aggrandizement seems to be occuring in the bio, and I know our business world articles are often lacking/missing so I bring it here for the wider view. No opinion as nominator. -- nae'blis 19:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pequeninos. Luna Santin 08:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list with information already covered in multiple areas, lists, and articles. List of characters in the Ender's Game series, and Pequeninos. Additionally the article does not use the correct capitalization of Pequeninos. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information comes into play as the bulk of chracters are non-notable outside of the storyline. -- wtfunkymonkey 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question. Possibly fails WP:BIO, also WP:COI. ghits: [5]. Washington Post article does not state that he's a mogul, it states he's a "mogul in the making" and "up-and-coming mogul." NMChico24 02:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, something notable there, yet WP:COI makes me tip to delete, then again... someone could fix this by end of this AfD Alf photoman 14:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misses WP:CORP significantly and will probably run into problems with several other software developers named "Dragonworks". Website appears to be here; products promoted in the article are in various states of development and unreleased. I can't see any other notable releases nor could I find any external references or media mentions. Article was only recently rewritten to be quite as G11 as it is. Contested prod. Kuru talk 02:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Article development led to clear consensus before closure. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 04:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems nn. Just H 02:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Thanks Quadzilla, I rescind my nomination. Just H 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
advertisement for hardly (if at all) notable author Errabee 02:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't locate much information of any use concerning this organisations claims. Delete as unverifiable. -- Longhair\talk 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged for a speedy deletion as patent nonsense, which it obviously is not. But looking at it, I can't see how this "movement" is notable. --BigDT 03:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladma. This individual gets very few g-hits. The assertion of his notability is that he wrote a paper criticizing Ladma. I'm having trouble finding that this person meets WP:BIO. BigDT 03:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What appears to be an online community. None of their claims seem especially notable; 5,000 members is certainly not enough to justify inclusion on its own. Grasps at notability with POV sentences like "The forums also host a comraderie and fellowship not found anywhere else on the Web," but I don't think anything's there to justify inclusion. Alexa rank of 1,070,339. Article creator removed PROD notice and defended his reasoning on the talk page. Elmer Clark 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may again do this wrong, but here is a response to the above:
I did not intentionally remove anything. As I said, this is my first attempt at making a Wiki page and I really do not know what I can and cannot do. I made no attempt to justify my mistake in this talk page.
If I were trying to justify this page, I would not bother with the membership numbers.
Registered Members: 5,830 Total Threads: 33,175 | Total Posts: 463,980
The significant number is the number of posts, not registered members. More than 12 thousand people have registered over the 8 years the site has been there, but folks who register and don't come back get deleted. The membership number above is the number of active users.
What is at the ZRXOA of significant value is the technical information. The OA has thousands of posts of technical merit. These include every detail of the Kawasaki ZRX as delivered, and every modification that can be purchased, made or installed.
A comment was made about the camaraderie. Say what you will, be we take care of our own. We have have raised tens of thousands of dollars for the families of fallen members.
A similar page that already exists on this Wiki is here: [13].
The ZRXOA page fits this exact category. If that page is acceptable, so should this one. I can see that page has more development than one I started last night, but this one will develop as well, if allowed to.Unreasnbl 23:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong link. I meant the HOG Harley Owners Group: [14]Unreasnbl 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod expired with rationale of non-notable sporting event. As an international competition (even in Europe where international means less than in the U.S.), it might actually receive press. So I'm elevating to AFD to see if anyone can find sources. GRBerry 04:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essay about a couple characters from the manga series Angel Sanctuary. Has no reliable sources (WP:RS, WP:V) and is full of information that would be of value only to fans of the series (WP:FICT, WP:FAN). As an essay, it is in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not only non-notable fancruft. It is completely unsourced nonnotable fancruft which provides absolutely no context about where it comes from either. It is also a recreation of a previously deleted article, however nothing new or informative has been added to warrant such a recreation. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 04:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable book. All but one sentence of article deleted as copyvio. No indications of notability obviously, and book has an amazon.com SalesRank of 1,465,705. Elmer Clark 05:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted PROD. Less than 300 ghits. Procedural nomination. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts that band is planning a nation-wide tour, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Does not yet meet WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC -- so delete. N Shar 05:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 23:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should not be used for Promotional advertisments for CarDomain.com. This domain is also a large contributor to the linkspam problem on Wikipedia (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan#CarDomain). Fails WP:NOT and WP:WEB. see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Www.cardomain.com Hu12 06:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/merge. I will add merge tags W.marsh 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(View AfD)
Delete all 3 per wikipedia is not a crystal ball Teh L 06:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:V. Unsubstantiated claim of "significant contribution the comic made to popular culture".
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly commercial and (bordering on?) spam in its current form with text like "The series is a highly-collectible, limited-issue DVD line in one-of-a-kind packaging." Jvhertum 08:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "notable" list lacking any sort of valid reference. Only criteria for list entry is POV. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. It may be possible that it IS the subject of the vast number of Google hits on the string "mystery song"... if so, it has been part of an internet fad. Which does not make it notable. Originally ((prod))ed, contested by HorseloverFat. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be considered notable only due to being related to notable people. Does hold some high-ranking executive jobs, but that doesn't make him notable. Fails WP:BIO, in other words. Originally prodded, but contested by Jerry lavoie. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although written by a notable author and dealing with a notable subject, I am afraid the book itself doesn't meet the notability criteria put forth by the Wikipedia community. Originally prodded, contested by Spacepotato. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 10:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is another Strauss and Howe neologism, describing individuals born in the first two decades of the 21st Century. It's crammed with weasel words and probably original research as well. Unlike other generational terms used by Strauss and Howe, this one has not acquired any widespread acceptance. Google hits are minimal [19], consisting mostly of blogs, wiki-mirrors and marketing sites. I suggest that this article fails our notability guidelines. Nydas(Talk) 10:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted after the original author requested deletion.--Commander Keane 23:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed speedy. I think it is a pure nn-bio and the author has kindly confirmed that it is an autobiography. -- RHaworth 11:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page, and I say delete it. I'm sure my user page will do just as good. I'm sorry if I caused any problems. B Lizzard 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus – PeaceNT 06:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is copied word-for-word from page 27 of Reader's Digest Book of Natural Wonders. Wiikid 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by Tom harrison (recreation). Mr Stephen 09:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought that this article was to be deleted. It was deleted once before and is now back. Eyes down, human. 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - nominator now votes keep, everyone else votes keep Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Red Croatia fails notability, giving a total of around 170 Google search results, when excluding Wiki-references. A large number of the search results are Forums and simple meaningful mentions, some of them like [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Croatia 2 this], where some yell "Heil Hitler" and salutes to the Ustašas. But the greatest issue does not lie there. It lies in the fact that Red Croatia is a geographical term used for three southern Dalmatian Slavic early medieval principalities (and we have an article for each and every one of them): Doclea, Travunia and Zachlumia - and there is nothing that should be in this article, and not in those three. A great part of the article (referring to the nationalist irredenta bit) is from/should be in the Greater Croatia article - which is the boil of controversy. Problem is that the "Red Croatia ideology" is just one of the numerous theories that exist for the soil, and not official historiography. In the end, the current article is as large as it will get, because there isn't much to speak about the term except: 1.Where the term is mentioned 2.What territories the geographical term accounts for ans 3.Where is this term repeated - all of which are already in the article. My suggestion is to merge it, preferably to the Duklja article, which by the way, already contains a mention of the term. --PaxEquilibrium 13:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, moving to AFD instead. No opinion. AecisBravado 13:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV Fork of the currently protected Armenian Genocide article, and Denial of the Armenian Genocide. Article marked for speedy deletion, moved to AfD for procedural reasons. yandman 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete with no prejudice against recreation at a latter date if notability can be established. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disputed PROD for NN-team, delete Cornell Rockey 14:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be one of the most important Ultimate teams in the UK. We already have pages for US teams. --Liface 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Luke! 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough information no sources citedCylonhunter 14:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable band, WP:BAND refers. (aeropagitica) 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
page starter looking for people to join his band Bigdottawa 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a conflict of interest here, and I do not feel that this topic is worthy of its own article on Wikipedia. The Good Blades advertise this Wikipedia entry via MySpace spam, which would support my suspicion that it has been self-written to create hype Terrencethetractor 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jacksprat87 21:43, 23 January 2007,
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for CSD:G11 but I don't see this as a blatent advertisement and the speedy was contested. I don't think it meets WP:WEB though, so listing it here.--Isotope23 15:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletion; There is an assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC here, but not being overly familiar with Scottish concert venues, I'm not sure if these are actual venues or just sold out bar shows. Regardless, listing here for consensus.--Isotope23 15:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No redirect since it's a very unlikely search term. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have pages for most other failed supervisorial candidates, and went through this deletion process with at least one other (Alix Rosenthal). Page is only linked to from two or three other pages, and page is a stub and likely to remain that way. Brainslug 15:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and no redirect. It is very unlikely that anyone would search for the exact phrase "Mephisto (character)" so a redirect would be pointless. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:FICT character should not be broken out into a separate article. The information is already at the main Double the Fist article. The character is listed at the Mephisto disambiguation page and it's unlikely that "Mephisto (character) will be used as a search term. Otto4711 15:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep – PeaceNT 06:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly confused. I meant to revert this article to the last good version but found out that there was none. I don't see anything salvageable in this article, but some might disagree, so I'm listing it here instead of speedy or prod. - ∅ (∅), 15:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unneccesary information about students mock trials at school. Nekohakase 16:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but merging should be considered if no non-trivial independent sources can be found. W.marsh 00:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One person in the entire school? This is either a hoax or needs to be completely rewritten. Nekohakase 16:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably?! Speediest Delete possible --Lee Vonce 16:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's been fixed I guess there isn't any reason to delete it except for notability. I'll leave the notability of the school for others to decide (because if it hasn't been in the news, I personally don't find it notable.) But it is slightly spammy... "with the school being so small, it gives students a chance to know their teachers personally and the chance to make friendships that will last a life time." is in no way encyclopedic. I would vote to get rid of it, or rewrite the biased information. Nekohakase 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep – PeaceNT 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whaa? How is a made up confection used in one south park episode (and, admittedly a song from said episode) notable enough for its own article. Dåvid ƒuchs(talk • contribs) 16:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested prod. The original prod tag said, "Fanfic in development - please see WP:NOTABLE." That was removed with the rational of, "Deletion message deleted, although if not satisfied with my reasoning, you can put the message up again. UgmoWho (or DW13) is an ensemble film, a community wide animation project. It utilises the program 3d Movie Maker, or more specifically its successor, v3dmm. However, we've pushed the boundaries by providing the first ever v3dmm-CGI-AfterEffects hybrid, so it is relevant to the 3dmm Wiki. We will add a link to this wiki on the 3dmm wiki when we have screenshots." A third editor replaced the prod with a reason of "Fan Fiction. Not encyclopaedic content." I thought at this point an AFD would be better than a prod. Procedural nomination; no vote. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. This article needs cleanup and referencing, but with only the nominator supporting deletion, consensus is established. AFD is not article cleanup. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Serpent's Choice 12:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an academic facility for American students studying in Paris. First of all, there isn't a sourced word in the article. Second, I can't see how it is at all notable. Its only real claim in this direction is that the building represents "a crucial and vibrant link between the academic communities of The United States and France," but it seems to me that even if such a link existed and could be verified, that would make the PROGRAMS there notable and not the structure itself. Dylan 17:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of this article is far too broad to be useful or encyclopedic. Seeking to list every film, TV show, music video, or computer game that has ever shown an NYPD officer is going to result in a 500K-article of dubious value. Why is such an article interesting or important?
The problem is that you can include anything from Law & Order, which is entirely about the NYPD, to a film about something else altogether in which you catch an NYPD in one frame. There's no way in this list to distinguish media ABOUT the NYPD from those that simple mention it. In short, this article is not encyclopedic. Dylan 17:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus defaulting to keep. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. There are no secondary sources pertaining to the subject within the article, and I haven't found anything on the web that is non-trivial. The only assertion of notability that actually pertains to the subject appears to be "The IGF became the major online gathering of writers who wanted to think and write beyond queer or beyond the left-liberal orthodoxy that they felt dominated gay identity and politics". I cannot find any evidence to support that claim. --- RockMFR 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had a notice on it since June 2006 that it lacks notability. No improvement since, plus article about organization cites technology that does not appear on company website. Calltech 17:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete --lightdarkness (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New drink invented in October 2006. Suggest NFT and original research apply. -- RHaworth 17:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a not-notable book. It does not list the author, sources, plot or much else, and the page has the wrong title. The book is called "Olivia Is Death With Grey Eyes" but the page is "Death Has Grey Eyes" so it is a wrong page even. Regarding inbound links, it is only linked to from List of The Shadow stories where most of the other titles do not have pages so I dont know why this book deserves a separate bad of this kind Pernambuco 17:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. The organization is not officially recognized by the college and thus does not participate in the NCAA Div III that the colleges official sports teams (The Bears) do. Lacking any major awards, recognitions, or titles, it is no more significant than any other student social club at any college. starX 18:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ground of insufficient notability - DeleteAsstBot (on behalf of IP: 81.174.157.135) 17:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently a "bootleg" album, it is not listed in the Band's official discography or on their website; prod removed by anon IP. "Article" is just a tracklisting. SkierRMH 17:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 04:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of great chart success are not backed up by any cites, record on AllMusic, Last.fm, etc. Looks rather hoax-like. Average Earthman 18:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this is a dicdef, not to mention a fairly incoherent and inaccurate one.Walton monarchist89 18:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep – PeaceNT 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Was speedied under CSD A7 (no assertion of notability), but original author and another newly registered editor asked for reconsideration. Tangotango (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Uncle G 12:54, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC) Per the deletion log:
Unnotable gay fiancee of gay rapper Michael Bolton?? Delete. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Comment: if it wasn't obvious before, look at this [29], left by the same anon who created the article. I think this should be speedied. Antandrus 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator, no delete votes. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a newspaper. This event is only notable in the news now, and will be quickly forgotten. At best, it's just an eternal stub. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Withdraw, they make good points. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB standards for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 18:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete The Indian Wars of the Great Plains, and Redirect of The Western Frontier. A Train take the 16:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a short story, entertainment, fiction, anything, but it's not an encyclopedic article. AecisBravado 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep but rename This article is not about the Western Frontier or else it would discuss the westward expansion of pioneers in prairie schooners, the Mormons, cattlemen vs. sheepherders, railroads, gold rushes and other mining, etc. etc. etc. This article as it now stands is about the American wars against the Indians. Fine, name it accordingly. BTW, I looked at the Western United States article and that article needs work. How can you hope to dump all of those states in a single "region"? California is different from the Pacific Northwest which is different from the Southwest and the other Western states are different from those regions. I also looked at the American Old West and it's got problems too. For now, let's keep all the articles but there needs to be some serious re-organization to rationalize all these articles. --Richard 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reasoning per above, Addhoc 13:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per nearly unanimous consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the relevant notability guideline for products and services sold by companies, products are notable only if they have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works or is so popular that the trade name suffers from genericization. Of those two conditions, the second obviously doesn't apply. Regarding the first condition, the Alcohol 120% page does not assert the existence of any independent, non-trivial published works discussing the product. I haven't been able to locate any, and the corporate webpage itself doesn't include any reference to any independent publicity. Previous tags for speedy deletion and prod were removed, but noone has provided any references to any independent publicity. TheronJ 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm aware of the sockpuppet issues but I do not think speedy keep applies here technically as obviously good faith editors supported deletion. Anyway, this is an article with no references except a myspace page... if anyone can present genuine references I will strongly consider undeletion. W.marsh 20:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
person failing WP:BIO and lacking references Jeremiahlaughlin 19:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This team isn't very notable. They've teamed only a few times: no tag titles, hardly any wins, no significant storylines, etc. Tag team cruft like this belongs on a wrestling wiki, not here. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every lesser team in wrestling. Relevant information (a sentence or two) only belongs on the Funaki and Scotty articles. RobJ1981 19:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Without sourcing, the basic foundation for article writing does not exist. - brenneman 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 19:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. A Train take the 16:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost a year since this was last put up for AfD and there are still no independent references or signs of fulfilling WP:WEB. Marasmusine 19:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. On contributions from *cough* very new members of the community, they were all suprisingly coherent and some even centered on wikipedia policies or guidelines. Refreshing. However, this debate was still only loosely structured, and the main argument appears to be regarding the strip's satisif-ication of the web material guideline. This hinges on the Web Cartoonist's Choice awards, and the consensus (as demostrated here) amoung the more established editors is that it does not count as a a notable independent award. This is quite arbitrary, and I've raised a section on the talk page of the guideline regarding this: Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive 08#Web Cartoonist's Choice award
brenneman 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 19:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion or evidence of notability; would be different if the video in question had already been released. Walton monarchist89 20:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable per WP:V; no assertion of notability; discussion of 'rage' fails WP:NOR. Walton monarchist89 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 20:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 20:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as advert (G11). AecisBravado 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply completing an incomplete nomination that kept showing up on the January 23 AfD log. I'm not sure why the original nominator wanted to delete the article, but my guess would be that it looks like an advertisement. At the very least it's got a whole swath of article-killing issues relating to WP:V, WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:COI, and WP:NPOV. Probably qualifies for a Speedy Delete as well. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 23:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 20:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like obscure fancruft; would advise deletion per WP:FICT, although admittedly I don't know much about The Evil Dead, so the article might be more notable than it appears. Walton monarchist89 20:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. - brenneman 01:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
Furthermore, the award which the author received has recently been deleted as non-notable. So... non-notable webcomic, written by an author who recieved a non-notable award. - Francis Tyers · 20:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mosjøen Airport, Kjærstad and mention there, it's a plausible search term apparently. W.marsh 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sources (in English) that support the article's claim. When I first came across this article, it wasn't sourced at all. I added as many relevant sources as I could find, but the main point of the article remains unsourced. Does this qualify as a prediction?? SERSeanCrane 20:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC; a link to their website is not sufficient. Walton monarchist89 20:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. -- Steel 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a bus listing, a non notable and impossible to expand article. No history to show evolution of the bus route RHB Talk - Edits 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (A7).--Húsönd 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page makes no demonstration of notability per WP:MUSIC; although it claims they released an EP, there are no sources and no name of record label. Walton monarchist89 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - brenneman 01:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 20:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB guidelines for notability.
- Francis Tyers · 20:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comic HAS won a notable independant award:
Tales of the Questor Volume 1 print edition was awarded the 2005 Ursa Major Award for Best Anthropomorphic Other Literary Work.
The Ursa Majors are the leading awards for anthropomorphic fiction and comics.
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopaedic; most likely original research (in particular, not properly sourced); and mostly reads like an advert, anyway. One might also add that the entry for this site was deleted in October 2006 as spam (without an AfD discussion, AFAICT). Schneelocke 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 21:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to wikipedia, but I started this article after seeing that there was no entry on Red Light Center. After starting with a two paragraphs, I have posted to the Red Light Center users forum to request that users who are familiar with wikipedia formats edit the article and add appropriate content. Since we have over 200,000 registered users, and since we are growing at about 40% per month, and since RLC has been featured everywhere from Wired to CNN, I think a wikipedia article is appropriate. That said, I am unclear how an article written and edited by people who use the software could be anything but original research. Since I am the creator, can I site myself when I give statistics? I can pull them from my database, which is how I report them to the press. In any event, I am unclear what about this article makes it weak or warrents deletion, but I'm happy to try to fix.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obsidianac (talk • contribs) 02:31, January 25, 2007.
The result was keep. W.marsh 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been deleted under CSD A7 multiple times, but I'm not totally sure about the notability factor for this article. I'm sending this to AfD for a community consensus on the fate of this article. To me, the subject seems to meet WP:BIO, and most probably WP:V, but I would like some confirmation from others. Thanks. Nishkid64 20:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] She is regularly cited by many top photographers, journalists, and fashionistas. She has appered on the cover of all the major women's fashion magazines, including Vogue. She has modelled for many top fashion designers. lx 17:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding its name, Crap I drew on my lunch break is a neat web comic, also available in self-published print form. Unfortunately, being neat is not one of Wikipedia's major content inclusion guidelines. There is some information in the WP article which is not on Comixpedia, which might be transwikied, but the essential facts are already available on Comixpedia. So far as I can tell, the article does not, and could not, be supported by independent non-trivial reporting of the WP:N "notability is not subjective" type, and there's no way to verify the article beyond the trivial source that the cartoon itself represents. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable teenager. NawlinWiki 21:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vanity page Mcr616 21:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 20:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a wiki engine was previously speedy deleted as non-notable; it doesn't pass the main criterion proposed at WP:SOFTWARE (a Google search doesn't reveal any non-trivial published works). This new version of the article also spends most of its time describing what is supposed to happen in the next version. WP:NOT a crystal ball. — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page is a stub and only restates some of the information that is found in article Mini hockey, a much more extensive article on the same sport. Nicholas_FJ 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, relist individually (WP:SNOW). --Fang Aili talk 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that these games are notable as Wikipedia defines it: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other." Therefore, I propose that we delete them. To avoid any perception of a conflict of interest or some kind of bias on my part, I will note that a) I tagged all of these and a few more for PROD; the tags were removed by various editors, which is why I've brought the debate here and b) these articles were brought to my attention after my deletion of Super Mario War as non-notable. ♠PMC♠ 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of concerns about notability:
This is precisely my point: Wikipedia's policies are very exacting, and if followed to the letter relatively few articles would survive your deletion policy! A lot, in fact *most* games do not have "multiple non-trivial published works" associated with them. And especially older games, like "Castle Adventure," which you've tagged for deletion, would've had no "professional recognition" whatsoever. By deleting these are articles you are helping no one. I think you should focus your energies on proper classification of articles (which you admins have been doing a good job of so far).
Consider this, in the optimal case, with "perfect" classification of all information on Wikipedia, there would be no need to delete articles, since people will always find what they are looking for. The less "perfect" our classification, the more articles we will need to delete in order to ensure that things are still easy to find. Information is very strongly classified on Wikipedia, as I see it, so only articles that are blatantly useless should be deleted. Mindthief 21:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft, plain and simple. Wikipedia isn't a guide to every little detail. A desciption of mini-games in general should be on the main Rayman Raving Rabbids article only. If people want to read about the mini-games, there is gaming sites for that. A popular mini-game series like Mario Party has no list pages for it's games (to my knowledge at least), Rayman shouldn't be any exception. RobJ1981 21:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not verifiable or notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —ptk✰fgs 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched up key terms, the rappers name, and the record companies and other bands and could find nothing on him. Violation of WP:BIO, WP:VER, and it has basically been orphaned by the author with no sources. Darthgriz98 22:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dupe of Yes man - also WP:NEO at best. ((Prod)) removed by article creator without explanation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 00:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Completely non-notable junior high school. Editor claims article is being used for a creative writing class, thus it is a vandalism magnet.Katr67 22:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article concerns a rumored new store chain from Abercrombie & Fitch. Despite requests for sources there are none. If the nonexistent, rumored chain ever becomes an actual, notable chain then it will probably have a different name anyway. Will Beback · † · 22:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Listcruft, Delete Kesac 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a mixture of stuff - reads like a spam email. All of the individual bits are real but all covered by seperate articles, so this hodge-podge serves no purpose. No idea what the purpose of this was. Could be a speedy but I'm not sure if you can use those for articles that have been around as long as this. Fredrick day 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Burren Action Group. Daniel.Bryant 06:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable charity album SUBWAYguy 04:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need articles on such trivia? Drat (Talk) 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teenage girl who appeared in one (yes, *one*) music video. There's very little reliable information about her, and whilst the video is great I don't think she counts as notable. More importantly, I'm not seeing the sources. kingboyk 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Came across this on Category needed. Appears to be a non-notable university club; nothing to distinguish it from thousands of other school clubs. I'd have prodded it, but I don't want to seem to be biting. If kept, which I'm not advocating, it should be moved to one of the re-direct pages that were created to go to this article. Their titles make much more sense and are more likely search terms than this title. Agent 86 23:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product advertising. No citation provided. —Moondyne 23:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/move. W.marsh 22:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant information on this page has been merged into History of the Pennsylvania State University. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion. More of a brochure than an encyclopedia article. adavidw 23:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD G1). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This will tell you all you need to know. Violation of WP:POINT, directly threatening other wikipedia editors... need I say more? The article itself is a complete hoax. Esn 23:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G11 and G10. --210physicq (c) 00:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. Furthermore, a likely WP:COI since article was created immediately after an attempt to add its external link to Reddit. SpuriousQ 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]