The result was speedy close as the first one isn't even closed yet. —Kurykh 17:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lulz Wwowbaby 17:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Mhiji 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Dictionary so it has Glossary of terms .Pharaoh of the Wizards 11:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete JoshuaZ 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable list, unsourced. Oli Filth 23:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Far too self-promotional, virtually all external links are self-referential. And yes, as an llc, the organizations and companies notability guideline does apply. Future recreation remains an option, but only with these concerns having been fully addressed. El_C 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is basically an advertisment for this group of video game players and their "partners". I don't feel it asserts enough notability to survive AfD, so I'm putting it up. DurinsBane87 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete JoshuaZ 18:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I previously nominated this article for non controversial deletion, but the tag was removed so I will do it here. This page falls under 'blatant advertisement' and fails WP:NOTE, as a search reveals only this wiki page and the companies' own page. References are only praise of the company. Ravenmasterq 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unused term and play upon Blackened Death Metal based purely on editors opinions of how heavy a Black/Death album is. Note also Deathrash which was previously (and will again soon be) deleted due to consensus of a the same specultive inbetween genres of Death and Thrash Metal. Jimmi Hugh 17:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. No 3rd party sources to indicate how this software is notable. Almost no changes since the article was tagged back in May for notability issues so now its up for deletion. --Hdt83 Chat 19:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to Keep. WaltonOne 18:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been labelled with the totally disputed template for several days, due to the completely misleading and inaccurate title and contents. See talk, there has been general consensus for deletion or merging. DWaterson 23:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as copyright violation. -- lucasbfr talk 00:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delaware community chorus (albeit with a noble goal) that fails WP:MUSIC. No references or assertion of notability. Also is overly promotional in tone and borders on WP:SPAM. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 23:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not notable and most sources are a novelization FreedomByDesign 22:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete JoshuaZ 18:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously non-notable "sport". WP:NFT. Unreferenced. Creator's name is similar to the editor that created the article so probably WP:COI as well. De-proded by author with no explanation. eaolson 22:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Puerto Rican Spanish. Pascal.Tesson 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced--and possible original research--article on an expression unique to Puerto Rican Spanish. Seems inappropriate since this is the English Wikipedia after all. Wiktionary and/or the Spanish Wikipedia are probably more appropriate places for this article. --Miskwito 21:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The content is available on request for any mergers not contrary to the consensus developed here. Sandstein 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertions of notability, no sources (reliable or otherwise), contains original research, does not meet writing-about-fiction requirements. --EEMeltonIV 20:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (executed by AndonicO, claiming WP:CSD#A7.) --Aarktica 21:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Game guide + non-notable clan Corpx 20:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep JoshuaZ 19:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be very notable (47 Google hits). Neutralitytalk 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that english speaking individulals may have problems verifying the facts about Jochum de Lange. But he is a wellknown character amoung local historians. and it is not hard for anyone who understands Norwegian to verify this information, due to articles in books and on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superveg (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete — Caknuck 01:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not apparently notable elementary school. --ROGER TALK 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technology writer with no clear notability. Notability tagged on 15th July with no response. There are no non-trivial inward links. Article comprises the sole contributions of Ekeiser (talk · contribs), with no substantive contributions by other editors, which suggests possible vanity. Given the common nature of the subject's name, Google hits are of little use here. Although the subject has contributed to several high-profile publications, such contributions do not seem to me to constitute automatic notability, and there's no evidence that any of his articles generated any significant response. The strongest claim to notability appears to be the books published, but of the four books mentioned, one is listed at Amazon under a completely different author name [5], which suggests ghostwriting not authorship, one has an Amazon sales rank of 729,639 [6] and the others have sales ranks well over a million [7][8]. No reviews or other information are cited, and I couldn't find any other than on specialist publications/websites in Google search. Espresso Addict 20:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's ... nothing to really say about this movie. Essentially admits it's crystallish, stating that "not very much is known but we will soon find out." Blueboy96 19:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Concerns about notability and referencing have not been addressed. However, no prejudice against recreation if such sources are found. Pascal.Tesson 00:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school The Evil Spartan 19:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as G7 (author requests deletion) Deletion made by User:B, non-admin closure by me. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete - I spelt the name wrong Jack1956 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete JoshuaZ 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Story about a Hindu boy that reeks of WP:HOAX. I was considering requesting speedy delete per G10 attack page, but I'm not sure it clearly qualifies, despite some inherently hurtful language. Not verifiable or sourced story. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 18:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Yochai Benkler. Pascal.Tesson 00:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism (WP:NEO) coined by professor. Fails notability requirements, as does not appear to be widely cited or accepted terminology. Prod was contested and removed: see Talk:Jalt for reasons why. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 18:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pascal.Tesson 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
stub that was improved. I can't prove it - if it is on the website, I didn't see it - but I swear this sounds like a brochure they send out to interested golfers or tour promoters. Postcard Cathy 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC) PS By that I mean copyright vio 18:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WaltonOne 18:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a businesswoman. There is a sufficient assertion of notability to make it un-speediable but I don't believe that the criteria in WP:N or WP:BIO are satisfied, unless there is some additional information that my internet search has missed. CIreland 18:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete & Userfy. The principal author of the page is Bradbooker, who created the page in their namespace. I have reverted their user page to the most recent version and left a note on their talk page. — Caknuck 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to be non-notable, even as stipulated in the article (host of a local morning radio show). Google does have 2000 hits, but it's not clear if it's the same Brad Booker. The Evil Spartan 18:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 23:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nine months after original AfD, KDY still does not have an appreciable out-of-universe write-up and still lacks citations. Role in The Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy is stubbish, and I'd be okay with a redirect to that collection if such an entry exists.
I am also nominating the following related pages
While all four these companies may have manufactured notable things -- X-wings, Star Destroyers, the Millennium Falcon, etc. -- the companies themselves do not meet notability muster. None of them meet the the writing about fiction guidelines. --EEMeltonIV 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, by overwhelming consensus. Mention of some of these people could be made in a related article, preferably in non-list format. El_C 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be replaced with Category:People from Jalpaigur, which I've already started Corpx 17:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 02:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable rapper. Article attempts to assert notability by claiming his connexions with a notable record company, but it gives no independent sources. Nyttend 17:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He deserves a page. Tavian Washington— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavian151 (talk • contribs) — Tavian151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Delete and recreate a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. —Kurykh 23:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not obviously notable middle school. Mostly un-encyclopedic content. --ROGER TALK 16:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This "theory" appears to have been made on Wikipedia. A Google search [17] supports the view that this was created on Wikipedia and was copied elsewhere. So, this should be deleted because it is complete OR... even if it miraculously isn't, then it an utterly non-notable "theory." The Behnam 16:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. The problem is that there currently is no satisfactory target since the district article does not yet exist. In the meantime, redirected to Hayward, California. I encourage anyone interested to start the article on the district and modify the redirect as well as merge any useful content. Pascal.Tesson 00:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed ((prod)). Non-notable middle school. --ROGER TALK 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't want to have to bring this to AfD but the PROD was removed. Fits exact criteria of what shouldn't be made into a list on wikipedia. Bulldog123 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of unreleased game `'Míkka 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to James Coburn, content already on the James Coburn page. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this filmography of this actor shouldn't be seperated from his biography Benjaminso 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to Keep. ELIMINATORJR TALK 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted as non-notable (A7). ELIMINATORJR TALK 16:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page of a nonnotable person. Presenter at a student's radio station. `'Míkka 15:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, although I would assume good faith that this is not a POINT violation. The many delete votes at the least suggest the standard is not crystal clear. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not follow Wikipedia WP:NOTE standards and is an extraordinarily too-detailed article on a fictional event which amounts to a detailed plot summary. This should not be merged, as it is already discussed on the main page of the War of the Ring, and its present summary on the War of the Ring page is suitable enough. Furthermore, this nomination for deletion is to bring universal enforcement in-line with the recent decision to delete the Second Battle of Hogwarts article for reasons of excessive plot summary, notability violations, and fan cruft. (Proponents' arguments in favor of deletion found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second battle of Hogwarts) These same arguments are applicable to Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The article for the Second Wizarding War was likewise deleted, and with it all traces of the First Battle of Hogwarts (otherwise known as the Battle of the Astronomy Tower) and is treated with a few sentences in the \Half Blood Prince page. Yet, this has been committed to film, has been the subject of countless articles and interviews and it was axed for the same reasons I now propose deleting Battle of the Pelennor Fields. The aforementioned articles were far less detailed than Battle of the Pelennor Fields. Evidently Wikipedia is not a fansite, be it Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, and this article violates this tenet. Auror 15:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, author request. Pascal.Tesson 15:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present reference doesn't seem to exist, if it's a book. It's not on Amazon.com nor in the Library of Congress database. (Previous references have been shown to be incorrect.) Importance not specified (and ((importance)) tag removed without serious comment). Even if the reference did exist, was a WP:RS, and the importance was specified, it could be merged into a section of formal grammar or formal language. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't play games on Wikipedia. FS is a legitimate formal language.
The existence of language FS informs us about the nature of concepts such as "theorem," "lemma," "proof," scores of others .... and everything in mathematics.
...which explains the hard on this guy has. There is a big entrenchment going on with the mathematical logic people in response to the creation of WikiProject Logic and its "philosophical" logic of which they have no care (or by their own admission, any notion).
This guy is either a genuine asshole or he is aloof and unaware that he is being an asshole (in which case I sympathize and feel somewhat forgiving). Be well all.
Gregbard 14:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns, has no mainspace articles linking to it. The sunder king 14:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Temporary keep per OTRS Ticket # 2007072910013442 MessedRocker (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a photographer, but there's no assertion of notability. (Well, he was married and had kids, but this is of course true for billions of people and anyway WP isn't a genealogical database.) Googling brings up Wikipedia, Wikipedia scrapes, genealogical stuff, and merely the most minor of references. Prodded on 19 July; prod removed (with an indignant edit summary) three days later. -- Hoary 14:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to FETCH! with Ruff Ruffman. I'm going to overrule consensus on this one, as this seems like a more common sense outcome. This is a conceivable search term, and the character is mentioned in the parent article. — Caknuck 02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns, no mainspace articles link to this one. The sunder king 14:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Avada Kedavra — Caknuck 02:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Beginnings of an unmaintainable list ... let's kill this before it gets out of control. Blueboy96 14:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:::I've tagged it for speedy because the list is incomplete and there is virtually little context.--JForget 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep but redirect to practically identical article KARA. The capitalised version appears to be the standard name for the group.ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable music group from Korea. I can't confirm notability via google. I don't think the article is salvagable. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax page. Google search for verbatim text of album title returned barely 100 hits. Of those, most seemed to be references related to wikipedia or other wikis with no verifiable sources. No external links or sources cited in article. Doesn't appear to be an actual album. Entoaggie09 13:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert it's notability and is very POV. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search for Columbia AND language with the phrase 'Orange entertainement' produces 9 results, most of which are irrelevant, one is a CV. There is no evidence I can find of independent sources to suggest that this is in any way a notable 'academy'. Emeraude 12:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A lot of this is original research. We are told there is 'statistical evidence' but there is no link to anywhere to suggest that there is statistical evidence. I have tried to find sources online but failed for some research on this that I could verify it with, alas there is none. Also the paragraph on trying to deduce which balls exist based on patterns could also be original reserach.
I have taken the information presented (balls that already appear) and merged it to the main article. As such, there is no real information to keep/improve to make this article any better. Hydrostatics 11:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Claims of notability uncontested since addition of new sources. El_C 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated for speedy deletion as spam/due to insufficient notability. Listed for cleanup since December 2005. Procedural nomination - no vote. - Mike Rosoft 11:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Not notable, no references. - Cyborg Ninja 14:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article which has no source verifying that this will be a future single. I couldn't find any reliable source in the internet that confirms it. No other useful content in the article currently, so I think this should be deleted. RaNdOm26 10:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete
Interesting, yes, but essentially trivia. Besides, it's arbitrary: Who decides what should be included on the list and what not?—Scott5114↗ 09:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:BAND, Iron Maiden tribute band, "one of the best" in northern Italy (but not the best?) 650l2520 08:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Term used during a lecture to describe 3 chocolate manufacturers. 650l2520 08:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Appears to be a hoax. El_C 19:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, zero Ghits. Is that little known, a hoax, a mis-spelling? 650l2520 07:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a much-debated AFD about 3 related articles. In summary:
As a matter of policy, AFD decisions are not decided for either side, by reference to other article decisions, or past AFDs (WP:DP). Nor is "a lot of work" a valid argument (WP:EFFORT), or that it's useful (WP:USEFUL) - both of these are forms of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. (However, note, the suggestion implied that fiction articles cannot include other than "real-world" organization is not correct per policy either.) The crux of the delete case is a concern that the article is a synthesis of editor's views or advancing such a synthesis, not based upon reference to reliable sources, and breaches fiction article guidelines. The crux of the keep debate is that a list of episodes in an in-universe timeline is encyclopedic and notable, and useful to fans and non-fans alike in the context of the series, and that the cites are verifiable.
I concur with DGG and DHowell that such a timeline could be encyclopedic or useful. It is a well defined, well presented list, doubtless useful, and many lists are to be found in Wikipedia. However AFD is decided based upon policy related points arising, and there are strong policy related points raised by the nominator and others opining "delete" that are not rebutted by evidence to the contrary in this debate. The main problem seems to be with WP:OR - although information on individual records is sourced and verifiable, the chronology as a whole is not. The clearest example of this is, that some items are sourced from book intros, but others just assume that broadcast date is buffyverse date, or use such measures of time and date as the editors see fit to apply. this is the classic definition of WP:OR, although I have no question it is in good faith, it's still a synthesis. To not be OR, the actual list and chronology would need a reliable source, and this doesn't seem to be the case. (But:- It's also questionable whether a reliably sourced "this is what fans think" would be enough, unless there was a published, agreed chronology, in which case Wikipedia is not a republisher of fan-info and that list would be better reflected by an in-article link anyhow).
(I haven't addressed WP:WAF above, since the matter seems to turn on WP:OR and WP:RS. Separate problems with WP:WAF are that 1/ in-universe views are useful, but are only one viewpoint, and on their own are discouraged, and 2/ plot synopses as a historical account are specifically mentioned -- although appropriate encyclopedic use of an in-universe view is not always forbidden. But ultimately, WP:WAF is a style guideline. WP:OR is policy and WP:RS relates to verifiability which is also policy.)
It's clear much good faith and hard work has gone into this. But unless someone on review can demonstrate 1/ reliable sources (and by that I think I mean, independent reliable sources, not just the views of a number of fans), 2/ related to the chronology as a whole, 3/ which are notable and 4/ capable of more than just re-hashing, and which are 5/ appropriate to mirror as an encyclopedia article, then I think the delete views are well endorsed by policy, and this article unfortunately fails to meet requirements. I have userified the text prior to deletion, in case it can be useful that way. Details posted at User_talk:Paxomen.
Also included are:
This is an original synthesis of the stories of the various Buffy and Buffy-related stories into a form organized in an irrevocably in-universe way.
It's largely unsourced, in both the verification sense (there's little sense where any of the claims made here are coming from, and many of them appear to be completely unsourceable except for fan forums) and the notability sense (none of the cited sources are at all concerned with a timeline). Instead, it seems to be the original synthesis of fans, teasing clues or cues out of many disparate sources, primarily personal observation of the subject. Nowhere can this problem be better seen than in Image:Buffyverse Chronology.jpg, the lead image for this page, which is apparently spliced together by fans from various, unspecified images.
In the previous AFD (which arrived at no consensus), it was argued that this is a useful navigation tool. It might be on a Buffyverse fan project, but Wikipedia handles fictional subjects by primarily regarding their role in the real world, while this timeline is structured in an in-universe way. It's also a terrible navigation tool for the way the articles are actually organized; some entries link to nothing, while there are dozens of links to some articles (like Tales of the Slayer).
Generally, such timelines have done poorly on AFD in the past, such as here, here, here, here, here, and here. (This isn't even counting the timelines that were just made up on the spot by their author(s).) A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Scope too narrow. El_C 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of awards dispersed internally amongst one collegiate team. 650l2520 07:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. （￣□￣；） Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ryulong and Kirkend this is not notable. I have put up a lot of sources. All the sources I found are here too: http://www.mr-lee-catcam.de/pe_cc_s.htm for a guide I think. There are over ten global ones. Please let me know. Thanks... Fromage911 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its on DRV now too for the AFD that Ryu deleted as useless. thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mr._Lee_.28cat.29 Fromage911 07:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, text of article is stolen from http://www.youtube.com/user/WHATTHEBUCKSHOW, possible self-promotion, warning templates deleted without justification. Ichormosquito 06:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without any reliable sources, this is original research. The talk page seemed to address concerns about this article, which is why it is here. The article itself is speculative, unsourced and therefore does not fit criteria for inclusion. the_undertow talk 06:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 05:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suspicious about the notability of the "film series" in question. For example, it is completely nonexistent on the Internet Movie Database (not to be confused with the notable Steal This Movie), and it just seems like something that somebody has thrown together and started distributing over the internet. I ran a Google Search to receive 48000 hits, but a very large proportion of the websites are merely torrents sites from which this "movie" can be downloaded, and I personally wouldn't call the sources reliable. Even the purported official website of the film seems completely unreliable. Hopefully this discussion will reach a good consensus. Ackatsis 04:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N; WP:RS. From the article itself: "They remained virtually unknown, but their one and only single retained high interest among fans of high energy rock and roll/ Detroit rock. A badly recorded bootleg LP called Strikes Like Lightning was traded in the 1980s." Has been a stub since mid-2005 without a single reliable source being added. THF 04:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective inclusion criterion of "famous", I'm not even sure the redlinked names are notable, let alone famous. More than 90% redlinks for a list nearly a year old isn't a good sign, redlinks aren't a problem in themselves, but it shows there isn't much hope of these becoming articles anytime soon. Saikokira 04:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete JoshuaZ 19:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Author has been asked numerous times to show a source for this idea on the Ramones page, to which he has not came up with anything. This article is based on entirely untrue information.} Hoponpop69 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, for all the reasons stated. El_C 19:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion on the basis of WP:NOT (not a dictionary) and WP:RS (needs verification). Underweight and body image articles already exist. May consider merging with body image? Cyborg Ninja 03:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. El_C 18:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research has been used here to decide what is significant enough to be included, and it seems to have been compiled by a single editor. I don't mind the article, it's just a selective list of major news stories from the last few years, but I don't think this kind of news review belongs on Wikipedia. Transwiki it somewhere more appropriate might be an alternative, if people don't want to delete it. Saikokira 03:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Drive a stake through the heart, stuff the mouth with garlic, cut off the head, burn the body and sprinkle the coffin with holy water. JoshuaZ 19:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references to this movie on IMDb, and a search on Yahoo and Google turned up no hits. This movie likely never even existed. Blueboy96 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you look at the producer's website (www.shockhorrorprobe.co.uk) or check sites IN THE UK. That is where it originated. It is notable because Robert Brock is popular in the genre and has directed several films.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DCTheatreLover (talk • contribs) 04:05, 28 July 2007. (the author of the article)
The result was Delete with no prejudice to re-creation in the future should he become notable. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The team is minimally notable; one player is not. Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability of athletes. Ward3001 03:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to David Icke. WaltonOne 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most notable thing about Gareth Icke is that he's the son of David Icke. As a musician he fails WP:MUSIC, and as a sportsman he fails WP:N as he has only played at an amateur level. Saikokira 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relation to to a notable band seems to be the only thing this article has going. Otherwise it seems to fail WP:BAND. Neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarthogDemon (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a giant trivia/fancruft list of alleged nicknames given for a tv personality. Totally indiscriminate Biggspowd 02:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While locally important, it is not a noteworthy bridge, and not every bridge needs an article. Pharmboy 02:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article on a living person; I suspect it's an ad since the only link is her talent agency. Someone de-prodded without comment and added ((Japanese Erotic Cinema)), but she doesn't actually appear on that template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I reckon the numerical vote to be only 12-to-7 for deletion, but arguments for deletion seem more consistent with policy in this case. In addition to NOT and TRIVIA, the article's poor focus condemns it to an irredeemable hodgepodge of original synthesis. Secondary sources about yeti in popular culture could probably correct this problem, but nothing suggests that such sources even exist—a fatal problem that puts the article on the far side of both WP:V and WP:N. Cool Hand Luke 09:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 01:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it's a rather detailed description about portrayals of a creature that nearly everyone believes to be fictional, and handles the subject well. If need be, merge into Yeti rather than delete. Author encouraged to save work, just in case. Mandsford 14:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really my area of expertise, but I can see no notability in these products as opposed to any other campany's products. Google search brings up many results, but these are for the company website and lists of stockists in the main. Emeraude 01:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any assertion of notability other than (to paraphrase) "the company exists and has services". Besides which, this article isn't even close to encyclopedic. Oli Filth 00:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN. A feature that appeared in an issue of TV Guide once. So someone created a Wikipedia article about it. Also nominating the related TV Guide's List of the 50 Worst TV Shows of All Time. Saikokira 00:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second article seems to be added
The result was Speedy Keep - Cyborg Ninja 04:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to satisfy WP:Notability Biophys 00:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete Orderinchaos 01:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future event richi 00:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also included:
Doesn't seem to be a notable musician, most GHits are for MySpace. Almost reads as if it were copied from someplace. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Sr13 02:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate information, no better than a List of American police dramas aired in the United Kingdom, or a List of American cartoons aired in Italy. Or even List of Australian soap operas aired in the United Kingdom, which is also nominated for deletion here. Saikokira 23:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. --Fang Aili talk 01:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also included in this discussion:
Dogstar foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Duplicate pages on a non-notable foundation that fails WP:RS, WP:V, reads as possible you-know-what (and possible copyvio too). Author declined G11 speedy on Dogstar foundation, so I'm taking both pages to AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Archangel per Grutness and CaveatLector. Band is non-notable but this is a common misspelling. Daniel Case 04:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reggaeton artist. Only "reference" is their Myspace page, so it fails WP:V. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, as the article's label is not notable and he has no awards or known media coverage. Article is full of peacock terms with no references to back up the articles claims of fame. I say delete. -- Boricuaeddie 00:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally speedily deleted per CSD A7, overturned to relist per DRV This is a procedural nomination. I'm neutral. IronGargoyle 03:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict happened has something been unintentionally deleted?
The result was redirect to Lilya 4-ever. MastCell Talk 21:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be mostly OR. One reference to a Swedish newspaper is provided but... the article is in Swedish. Doesn't seen to be enough to establish notability. The Parsnip! 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no sources, only one scant link to UD Will (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus for deletion in this debate/discussion.. Navou banter 02:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one source - we need multiple sources. Most of the article is trivia. Will (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neologism, only one "source" to a unreliable site Will (talk) 07:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete unreferenced slang. IrishGuy talk 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article purports to describe a stereotype, the name of which is a slang word. Searching for sources I find none at all that document any such type of person, let alone that can be used to confirm any of the contents of the article (such as the clothing preferences of this type of person). This article is documentation, being constructed firsthand directly by Wikipedia editors, for something for which there is no prior documentation outside of Wikipedia; it is original research, which is forbidden here. There's no evidence that this is even an alternative name for the stereotypes that are documented, such as chav, so no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 18:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. —Kurykh 23:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neologism Will (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Electra complex. Redirects are cheap. ELIMINATORJR TALK 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned for twelve months and unsourced for eleven (UD doesn't count). This should redirect, but I know not where. Will (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
only sources are a wiki and Urban Dictionary, neologism, and the second paragraph (concerning several emo/"post-hardcore" bands) is very shaky per BLP Will (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neologism - only sources UD Will (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a journalist got called it? Big deal. No sources. Will (talk) 07:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - reasonably sourced now. Will (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the UD ref, we have one source, which makes the subject an nonnotable neologism Will (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per valid CSD A5 and limited but unanimous consensus to delete. Nihiltres(t.l) 13:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
neologism Will (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - got mixed up. No objections. Will (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn neologism Will (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Leave a redirect to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and no sound argument has been provided regarding that concern.. Pascal.Tesson 04:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no reliable sources apart from its origin and a very shaky notability - its claim is unsourced, and only a few blogs have picked up on the term. Will (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - a merge seems the best way to solve this. Will (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
cites no sources, OR, possible POV piece. Cites few sources and reads like OR. Will (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unverified material, based primarily on one popular book. The whole "US Generations" project is just atrocious! This is but one example Dylanfly 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of many pages dedicated to a single popular book, by Strauss and Howe; serves mostly to promote their consulting business. Not used at all by academics. Deserves one article, not 30. Moreover, very confusing, given widespread use of US Gilded Age, with entirely different dates. Truly below Wikipedia's standards. Dylanfly 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'm allowed to chime in on my own nomination, but a MERGE could work, as far as I'm concerned. I just think its preposterous to have the Strauss and Howe stuff encompass 30 of its own wikipedia articles. I nominated Republican Generation for delete, but it was kept. That and this and a dozen others could be piled onto ONE page for Strauss and Howe's cheesy work. --Dylanfly 13:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 01:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ibid. Strauss and Howe's stuff; not only unsubstantiated, amateur, and uncited, but also a preposterous view of American history, in which only WHITES (and primarily MEN) are considered. Generally based on ELITE cultures too. Ignores diversity, and perpetuates a very biased view of US History. Dylanfly 16:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Does not appear maintainable nor even remotely holistic; overlap seems arbitrary. El_C 20:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is of no use. One, it is impossible to update - WP:LGBT have over 7000 articles, a tiny fraction of which is represented here. It is were fully filled up it would be too large and unwiedly to navigate. Two, the list is arranged alphabetically andnot by category and thus does not help any user looking for something. Three, mere article titles are not helpful, as many are ambiguous. No-one's working on this, and we have a category system if you're looking for something in particular. Let's delete it and write some more useful and interesting lists. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
