The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:32Z
Article is a category improperly implemented as an article Anonymous55 00:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This came out of a discussion on Category_talk:One-piece_suits. The One-piece garment article is essentially a list of links to other articles with very little other content, and has existed for over four years. The One-piece suits category was created three days ago. They're not identical in scope; the article includes non-bifurcated garments like dresses, whereas the new category does not. My idea is to replace the article with a category called One-piece garments, and make One-piece suits a sub-category underneath it, but I don't know if that's the best solution as the two categories may be too similar to justify keeping them both. Looking for input on that. Anonymous55 00:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Friday (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability, fails WP:PROF and possible vanity. DWaterson 00:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP, due to notability, but the article does need a bit of a cleanup job. Mo0[talk] 00:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Former local councillors are unlikely to be notable, only 525 Ghits, claims he "gained national attention" are probably somewhat exaggerated and relate to some minor local dispute of no lasting notability. A couple of third-party news reports cited, but I cannot see sufficient overall notability here to warrant an article. DWaterson 00:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result was withdrawn by nominator. I appreciate the input. -- Dhartung | Talk 20:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear notability per WP:PROF, additionally apparent WP:AUTO. Dhartung | Talk 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Skapunk. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:33Z
Delete -An article about this topic was already deleted using the normal Wikipedia procedures. There are no references, and there is not enough information to adequately differentiate it from the ska punk article. A recent deletion proposal was deleted on its fifth day in a bad-faith edit by an anonymous IP user without any justification. Spylab 00:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:34Z
See talk page, there seems to have been some dispute over notability here. Personally, I can't see anything in this article that establishes notability - being a moderator on a forum and running a payphone list website fails WP:BIO DWaterson 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was wrong spot. I'll list the articles in the category for deletion as a mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investiture of the Gods (chapter 1) as I agree the stuff should be deleted and that's probably what the nominator meant anyway. Please comment over there. MER-C 06:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for an article for the summary of each chapter of a book.)) SyBerWoLff 00:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect the verifiable information from E-wrestling to Fantasy wrestling. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hobby. No reliable sources, full of original resarch, fails WP:A. One Night In Hackney303 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
One Night In Hackney303 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability, fails WP:CORP and WP:COI. NawlinWiki 13:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Also, full of original research -- it seems to be written by the company's principals. Novalis 01:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result: speedy delete under A7, notability. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was result :Kenneth Kraus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) This actor does not seem to be particularly notable. The article says he was “offered contracts with some of the well known agencies” but no evidence is provided that he ever took or fulfilled any of those contracts. The article says that he “vanish[ed] from the acting industry...” IMDB has not heard of this person. A Google search does not seem to turn up anything relevant. No sources are provided with the article. ●DanMS • Talk 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, hoax, how much you wanna bet that USDS is a high school? NawlinWiki 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero Google results for this syndrome. The scientist who allegedly discovered it, "Noam Benson", does not appear to exist (or at least has not made much of an impact in the field). Prod tag contested by article's author. Delete due to lack of verification. ... discospinster talk 02:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not notable enough person Mayumashu 17:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to the main article Stranger Than Fiction (film). Friday (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not contribute anything that isn't already in the article of the film. It is not an encyclopedic treatment, as described in the Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction) article, nor is the section on the character in the film page too long Donaldd23 02:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carabinieri 14:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established or sourced per WP:WEB, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk 03:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Arfan (Talk) 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page when there are only two possible uses and only one minor use makes Wikipedia unnecessarily difficult to navigate. WP:DAB would suggest that the best possibility is to use the {otheruses4} tag in the Puerto Rico article to point directly to the alternative page rather than to force readers to click two separate links after typing "Puerto Rico" in the "Go" box, in which case the disambiguation page is extraneous, but one editor insists on that additional step. TedFrank 03:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 08:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only 5 G-hits I got for this particular yoga were from other language Wikipedias. This is not encouraging. I have just enough doubt about my judgment in this case to bring it to AfD instead of speedy. Pigmandialogue 03:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really assert notability, doesn't add much to the encyclopedia. I've sent it here seeing as it has been prodded and de-prodded. Picaroon 03:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete for lack of content. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:35Z
Articles like this are why the word otaku is often translated "creepy nerd" Nardman1 03:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to List of black inventors and scientists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unprecedented list, overall pointless. Wikipedia isn't like a Middle School Black History Month powerpoint presentation. There is nothing *unique* about being Black and being one of these things so a separate article like this is just plain ridiculous. Categories already exist for any relevance here anyway. Usedup 04:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this page isn't very well done, for one thing, I think the name choice is poor. But since Category:Inventors by nationality does exist, I'd say there's no inherent objection to identifying people by race or ethnicity as appropriate. But this page is poorly doing it. I don't know if List of Black Inventors or List of African-American Inventors or what would be the better name to work with though. FrozenPurpleCube 05:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:37Z
Delete. Does not satisfy notability guidelines for fiction; only one (irrelevant) Google result for "ewar"+"Nuclis". ... discospinster talk 04:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a book series without any assertion of notability aside from a few mentions in non-notable websites, nor any that I can discern from a quick search. There are neutrality concerns which would require repairing should the article be kept. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the section "Other reviews of the books" to the page. --Snooziums 23:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Note: The author of these books, Suzanne Ward, is a regulator guest on BBS Radio, and in fact, is listed on the "shows" section of that Wiki page. Clearly, there is enough notability to be listed on a radio station that has enough notability to be listed on Wiki.
The result was Keep. James086Talk 10:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established or adequately sourced per WP:BIO, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk 04:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established or sourced per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 05:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per author's request. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teen model. Already deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I guess this is going to keep coming back, so it needs to go through AFD once so that it can be deleted under WP:CSD#G4 from now on. — coelacan — 04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per request of original poster. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teen model. A bunch of blogs for "references", and websites apparently run by her or her family or her promotional company. (probably User:Mtoa). Nothing like reliable sources to write an article from. Part of a "series", apparently. Image is probably a copyvio. — coelacan — 05:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are websites such as Pageantry Magazine, Seventeen Magazine, and Youthnoise run by her, of her family, or promotional companies? Also where are their blogs listed on the references? I don't see any. Image isn't a copyright violation since I'm her manager and I run the website it was put on. You cannot just make accusations for fun or just because you want to because none of what your saying is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtoa (talk • contribs).
It's actually NOT a blog, she wrote the article after Youthnoise contacted her asking her to write it, but it was received and published by Youth Noise. Pageantry Magazine and Seventeen Magazine were magazines which covered her stories just like Turn for the Judges magazine.
Mtoa, I checked YouthNoise again. Right there on every page it says very clearly: "Register and post content". That's a blog. That means anyone can put anything there. I see no indication that Daniella was personally invited to do so. — coelacan — 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per request of original author. JDoorjam JDiscourse 02:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable beauty pageant. Part of a "series" by User:Mtoa (stands for "miss teen of america"). Links to blogs, a general link to some pageantry magazine. All blatant advertizing. I would speedy but these things keep coming back (like Katie Lisel) so I'd like to get one AFD done so that future deletions can just be WP:CSD#G4. Anyway, nothing here like reliable sources to write an article from. Just say no. — coelacan — 05:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teen beauty pageant. Note, this is not Miss Teen America which was up for AFD not too long ago. This is part of a series by User:Mtoa. Sources are blogs and general links to internet magazines that may or may not have covered this at some time. In any case not reliable sources to write an article from. Image is probably also a copyvio. — coelacan — 05:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this is also hosted at tripod http://misswesternnewyork.tripod.com/ and it's an OFFICIAL miss america preliminary you can double check at www.missamerica.org to see for yourself
you can also view a fully paid for ad for miss teen of america and miss western new york in supermodels unlimited magazine and pageantry magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtoa (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Friday (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphaned article about a non-notable fictional company that appeared for a few minutes in a couple of television episodes. Otto4711 05:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources for the article are affiliated with the subject, and I cannot find any significant secondary or independent sources. This seems to violate WP:ATT in that self-published and potentially biased sources should not be the basis for an article. The article also appears to be promotional. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 05:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Withdraw nomination, source information has been found. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 08:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal notability asserted: in the news for having taken her clothes off; since that time, has done a very little of this, that and the other. Not a speedy because not a re-creation of the article created before, this is more carefully done and more comprehensive than its predecessor. Hoary 05:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the previous AfD. -- Hoary 05:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, a directory of Roman Catholic priests in a particular geographic area. I guess if I had to pick a criteria for deletion, it would be WP:ORG or WP:NOT#IINFO. (As an aside, I'm probably going to Hell for nominating this article for deletion.) RJASE1 Talk 06:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:39Z
Article has been around since 2002, but seems full of speculation, rumor, original research. Sources are almost all self-referential or self-published. RJASE1 Talk 06:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:41Z
All these articles constitute is an unsourced plot summary, which may be construed as unattributable original research. Also, this plot summary is far too detailed, thus failing WP:NOT#IINFO. Merging isn't really an option here due to the sheer size of what we're dealing with. MER-C 06:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, you could say that my chapter articles could be used as external informational links to each character within the Fengshen Yanyi characters category. If these chapters remained in existance, I could take every character and organize them into a few different character list article (such as "officials of the Shang Dynasty", or "Superiormen of Fengshen Yanyi"). Within each biography, I could say a general amount of information, and then provide bold subtitles of the characters' specific actions that will lead to a chapter; Thus chapter articles could combine "trivial" information with general information that is wanted by Wikipedia. Thus, these actions will make Wikipedia more creative and will combine information with Wikipedia's standards, and the want of the people. User:Tathagata Buddha, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Even if so, these chapter articles could be used as a source of trivial information that may wish to be known. For example, see Characters of Kiba; this is a grand example of an unorganized - far too uncategorized article. My objective is to take a page like this, trim down it's information, and basicly you could say transfer it to external articles (such as a chapter article in this case). For example, I could take every character currently within the Fengshen Yanyi character category and put them into a few different mass article pages, such as "Offficials of the Shang Dynasty" and "Superiormen of Fengshen Yanyi". After telling a certain amount of general information for each character based from each specific plotline (or chapter in this case), I could label the corresponding chapter within parenthesis.
Example:
Su Daji Su Daji is a major character featured within Investiture of the Gods who has contributed greatly to the Shang Dynasty's fall. Throughout Daji's many torture devices, the Bronze Toaster (6) would be her first creation. The Snake Pit, and the Meat Forest (17) would be her additional creations throughout the course of the novel.
Thus, instead of rambling on amount information that is "trivial", but yet needed in order for an individual to completely understand the plotline, the chapter articles could serve as information containers. As of the moment, my Category:Fengshen Yanyi characters is rather unorganized and generally says information that is already said within my chapter articles. Thus, by keeping these chapter articles alive, far more organization within the Fengshen Yanyi characters could be achieved and "trivial" information could be at a set base, while "general" information is at another base. Even if it is not seemingly right to have chapter articles within this foundation, it will avoid overcrowdment and will instill creative organization; and I thus believe they should be contined. However, if the chapters are still linkable from wikipedia to wikibooks, then I will conclude that such an action could be acceptable. User:Tathagata Buddha, 11 March 2007 (EST)
The result was speedy keep using the snowball clause. The article was nominated without the realization that, at that point, the article had been vandalized.--TBCΦtalk? 08:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vulgar nonsense NorthernThunder 07:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, original research, should be covered at NASA if anywhere. NawlinWiki 13:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An essay of sorts containing likely original research. All of the good info is already covered in the NASA article. PROD was removed by the article creator. Wickethewok 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 01:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term "chipmonk nest" is a non-notable neologism used in one movie. It is not encyclopedic on its own and likely does not even merit inclusion in the Nacho Libre article. Hemlock Martinis 07:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by an IP address with no reason given. Yet another road article that makes no claim to notability, offers nothing more than directory information and provides absolutely no sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOT a directory/gazeteer and WP:ATT. Nuttah68 08:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Internet singing "star". Delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC, article also contains violations of WP:CRYSTAL. RJASE1 Talk 08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 15:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strikes me as a rather random topic. Would make a great essay topic- looks like it's got it's thesis with how Africa is used to appear "exotic" and that it consequently gives Africa a poor image- but Wikipedia isn't the place for that. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 08:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarzan's children: Why movies about Africa require white saviors.[11]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:46Z
Delete per WP:NOT#IINFO. RJASE1 Talk 09:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:46Z
Unreferenced article about an apparently minor game show. Reads as original research, and fails to estalish the significance of the subject. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus but note that the discussion trended keep in the last couple of days after the article was modified.-- Chaser - T 10:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about a TV show. No idea how long it ran for, or indeed pretty much anything else about it. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Φtalk? 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Veinor (talk to me) 01:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability hasn't been established. Completely unsourced. No results from Google books or News Archive. Virtually no english language results from google apart from Wikipedia. Addhoc 10:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a very well written dicdef, belongs at (and already is at) wiktionary Vicarious 10:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a slang term for heroin and a fairly obscure one at that. I can't see any justification for keeping it here. Peter Isotalo 16:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 15:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done searches for this wrestling promotion, and found nothing to prove it's notable enough for Wikipedia. RobJ1981 10:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way to fix excessive trivia in articles is to prune it, not to split it out into articles which are entirely composed of trivia. I absolutely love Carmina Burana and can sing much of it fomr memory, and I grew up with the Old Spice advert, but this is still just a collection of cruft which got too big for the article and should have been hacked down to size. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page not only reads like an advertisement, but included no more than the lore available from the Hotel's website Galf 10:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to the Hotel should not have been deleted. The last time I visited the place was 20 years ago, and to suggest the place to foreign friends, reference to the hotel is important. Having accomodations in such a beautiful place is important information.
I strongly urge that the Hotel information may be diluted but absolutely not erased.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ragib (talk • contribs) 11:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC). Vanity page on Non-notable film maker. Subject himself created the entry. only 176 google hits, most of which are from personal websites by the subject himself. The film mentioned is a student film. Ragib 11:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:47Z
First off: a prod was on this, and removed because the creator of the article claimed it was "vandalism". Anyway: this is pure fancruft. Lots of movies have special effects, Lord of the Ring being a popular series doesn't make this any more notable. Put this on a fan wiki, not Wikipedia. RobJ1981 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to a list of characters of the (video game) series. - Bobet 18:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This set of articles covers the main and support characters in the Brothers in Arms series. Individual characters are not notable enough for their own articles and lack reliable sources that are not in-universe. These articles are little more than a collection of what happens in the game to each character, which often overlaps and should already be covered in the game articles. I would merge, but considering the length of the article name and non-standard rank usage, it's unlikely that anyone will input the whole title for a merge. Scottie_theNerd 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: Clearly, these articles have been hastily put together by one person without realising the significant overlap of each article. Also considering the names are practically unsearchable due to the use of rank, name and nickname (never presented all together in the game) and the creation of a category just for these characters, I don't see much merit in keeping, merging or even redirecting these. As mentioned above, some of these characters are barely notable in the games, let alone as standalone Wikipedia articles. --Scottie_theNerd 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --Scottie_theNerd 12:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 15:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of information that belongs in each bands article. The list will become so big over time that it will be impossible to maintain. Sourcing the article would be a superhuman task. Delete Pax:Vobiscum 11:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Pax:Vobiscum 08:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:50Z
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, valy non notable documentary film (Google only 241 hits) and fan film. Lopineg 12:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus/keep.-- Chaser - T 09:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this article is about debut album of the Norwegian band Tre Små Kinesere it appears to fail WP:MUSIC other then the statement was an instant hit in their home country the article makes no claims of notability for the album or the band. The prod I placed on the article was removed and some minor changes made. ghits are low in English and Norwegian mostly blogs and mirrors. Jeepday 12:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:50Z
This article has no sources, it's not notable, and mostly nonsense Latulla 12:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:50Z
Only source is Urbandictionary.com Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 12:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable company. Prod contested. Delete as nominator. Femto 12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by User:CambridgeBayWeather. NawlinWiki 13:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would tag this for speedy, but I am not sure it meets the criteria, so I brought it here. Do we really need a page detailing silly nonsense vandalism?>< RichardΩ612 ER 13:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rambling and imprecise dictionary definition. Has one source (not on web), so bringing here just to make sure. NawlinWiki 13:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. DavidCBryant 13:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:51Z
Not notable, orphaned page. Zaian 13:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A self promoting article of a non-notable academic. Created by User:Akman, this article doesn't meet WP:A or the notability requirement for biographies. See also: First nomination Alan.ca 14:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn website, fails WP:WEB, last afd hung on by the skin of its teeth because a few people brought up a mention on a minor cable network. This still is not a WP:RS and the article/subject does not (and will not) get multiple reliable sources. The alexa was never in the top 100,000 and is currently around 3,000,000. It's just another video game site, and there's around 100 on here, way too many. Booshakla 06:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism; non-notable location of high school fights. ObtuseAngle 14:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion per CSD G11/A7 by Steel359. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only claims to notability are touring in Sweden and that they were interviewed by a minor Italian magazine. Antonrojo 14:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a3, just a photo. NawlinWiki 01:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page created and edited solely by subject. Just plain Bill 14:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vague description of a non-notable song. Antonrojo 14:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:54Z
Advanced Chess appears to be the name used by a very small group to describe computer-assisted chess. Of the few references cited, at least one calls it ocmputer-assisted chess, not Advanced Chess. A measure of its significance is that the Advanced Chess Association uses a free webhost and does not even have its own domain name. The article seems to be written form personal knowledge, and is essentially unreferenced save for the aforementioned associations. This should either be significantly rewritten, referenced and moved to computer-assisted chess, or deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Reviewing the page, apparently, it's sourced from somewhere else, but with a license that while it may be compatible with the GFDL and wikipedia, also may not. I think somebody needs to check that out, and see if it would be worth starting this article over from a clean slate if the license, such as it is, is a concern. FrozenPurpleCube 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an indiscriminate list of trivia seeking to capture any appearance or mere mention of a specific car with no regard to the importance or lack of same. See for precedent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films featuring Mini cars which was deleted despite being composed strictly of actual appearances of the car rather than just someone saying "Mini." Otto4711 15:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.-- Chaser - T 10:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No criteria for inclusion and unreferenced making it unverifiable listcruft. —Moondyne 15:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bucketsofg 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, promotional artist biography - fails WP:BIO, WP:ATT. RJASE1 Talk 16:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is blatant advertising, in as much as it exclusively promotes a person. That in itself is not a reason to delete. The reason to delete is that it exclusively promotes a person and needs to be fundamentally rewritten. It is full of original research, POV and peacock terms, is not properly referenced. I am not attacking the author for this, as a new editor will not know all these things. It takes editorial experience to write such an article to the required standard. However, the edit box for a new article states:
The new editor who chooses to ignore this, does so at their own risk. New editors are invited to contribute to wikipedia, but not to write (self-)promotional articles. For an article like this to be retained, it requires a substantial amount of work to be done on it by an experienced editor — which is not a demand that the original article editor is entitled to make. We are seeing far too many new articles that fall into this category. I think this subject may meet the notability criteria, so that if any editor choose to do the work necessary to create an acceptable text, I will look again. Otherwise, I suggest to Michael144 that he gets proper experience on wikipedia as an editor by helping with a range of articles and working with established users. He may then be in a position to contribute an acceptable article on Justin Michael Jenkins. The only reason I have not speedy deleted this is out of respect for the editors who have already contributed to this AfD, which I think should be allowed to make the decision. Tyrenius 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Daedra. Rlevse 12:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable "alphabet"/font not used anywhere outside of a video game. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. —Angr 06:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Nonnotable music teacher. No indication of meeting the criteria of WP:MUSIC. —Angr 16:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 11:57Z
A one-line trivia mention in Chuck Norris padded out into a long promotion for a website which is now 404 anyway. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CORRECT AFD LINK -- for whatever reason the AfD link won't fix, so please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chuck Norris Facts (2) if trying to comment from the AfD master list. Autocracy 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sourcing concerns not addressed. Shimeru 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disputed speedy, disputed PROD for non-notable consulting firm that makes no assertion of notability, has no references, and has shown no signs of improvement since creation in Feb-06. any cleanup tags placed on the article are repeatedly removed by anon. IP addresses. delete Cornell Rockey 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cornell Rockey: Wiki policy states: "Advertising: Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." Where in the current article do you find objectivity or bias? M nye 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been improved, and the concerns have hopefully been addressed. While, as in all wiki articles, this page, too, is still a work in progress, it should not be deleted altogether just because it is yet to be "perfect." M nye 18:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been improved, and the concerns have been addressed. Dragomiloff's "Delete" should not be considered because, based on his/her signature timing, he/she likely had not yet seen the improvements made to the article. M nye 18:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable author, and obvious vanity. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not think this page should be deleted, Jaranda does. Arx Fortis 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see value in having a clickable title for any succession box and, in particular, succession boxes for NFL QBs. Why should we require a user to click through an entire succession box to know the list of succession?...or to find the first or most recent person/item in the succession? Here is an example of a succession box (which is on the Dan Marino article with clickable title:
++Arx Fortis 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated as Delete as for not notable enough apart from her campaign to scrape the barrel of celebritydom just to stay in the UK purely to get publicity from the press. Dr Tobias Funke 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
local TV station, no external sources, no evidence of significance. Oh, and terrestrial analogue is due to be switched off anyway... Guy (Help!) 17:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:A, WP:COI. Sandstein 08:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is an autobiography. (See WP:AUTO, WP:COI) If Mr. Pritchard is notable, the article needs reference to published sources, and it needs an editor who isn't its subject. Rainwarrior 18:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response from Fredrick Pritchard:
First, I DID remove the previous tag placed on the page, in the belief that the article had been accepted. Apparently User:Kon-Tiki001, had placed the tag, but I replied on his/her talk page (Section: Autobiographies). I presented my arguments and appeal there. He replied, "Your article is probably an exception to the rule, and should in my opinion be allowed to stay." However, I will make efforts to provide sources, and carry out all above requests. Obviously, only someone who knows much about me in each area (composer, performer, theory, and education) would have a reasonably complete basis to act as an editor. Prof.rick 19:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REVISIONS
I have re-written and condensed the article, Fredrick Pritchard. Please check the article's Discussion Page for comments regarding changes, and a rationale for keeping the article. Prof.rick 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Talk page on this article, Fredrick Pritchard. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Rainwarrior Check again! All these pages make references to me, Rick Pritchard (Fredrick Pritchard. True, I edited their pages. However, I have consulted all parties concerned, and they have first approved and supported my moves, and will make it clear. If they support my edits, can this be considered "salting"? (Surely, if a number of these successful artists still return to me for lessons, this must say something!)
Greg Wells tried to add to the Fredrick Pritchard page today, but his move was reverted. Will this happen to every submission by my successful pupils? Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Rainwarrior Would you like a signed letter from them? Or would you question their signatures? (See my notes to ERcheck). IF NECESSARY, the named artists will write to you. 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To User:NBeale: Thank you for changing "Strong Delete" to "Delete". Is another editor not notable if Wikipedia contains an article about him/her? Please refer to the article's talk page for "published sources", and also please check the References I have provided. (I could add more, but should the page be smothered with references?) Again, I regard this issue as not primarily about me, but about Wikipedia policies, and their interpretation. Whether or not the article is kept is less important to me than the interpretation of Wiki policies. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To User:ERcheck: And why shouldn't I reference myself regarding the Musical Notation article? I spent many hours researching the subject, and contributing to the page. The quote (to which I refer) is published and verifiable. Even if my contributions were not founded (contradictory to the page history's evidence), what on earth does it have to do with THIS article? Shall we then question I am a devoted and honest editor, and hope to remain so. I have contributed untold hours to the advancement of Wikipedia.
Furthermore, I can hardly be accused of "salting" when all such edits were done with the approval and support of the subjects of the articles in question. I don't want to argue this case, but please, let's play fair! Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support of Wikipedia policy whether or not regarding the Fredrick Pritchard article, User:Kon-Tiki001, User:Black Falcon, Greg Wells, Jonah Cristall-Clarke and Erin Leahy. Prof.rick 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or have you simply made a decision which cannot be changed? 07:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Whether the Fredrick Pritchard article is KEPT or DELETED, (a matter which doesn't matter a great deal to me); I am just bursting with such remarkable attention! I think its time for a little humour here! Whatever your stand, let's all take a moment to laugh at the entire issue, which, really, is of less importance to the world than we may believe! Not one of us (editor, adminstrator, or the like) can hardly become so absorbed in this issue that it effects our daily lives! Please, everyone, PRO or CON, take some time to put it in perpsective, and LAUGH!!! Wikipidia policies are more legitimately destined to scrutiny, than I am! Prof.rick 06:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This one is interesting... It is an article about a Japanese holdout who supposedly surrendered in the Philippines in 1980. The problems with this article are the lack of any verifiable material. A Google search pulls up only one line mentions here and there, plus a bunch of Wikipedia mirrors. Other Japanese Holdouts who (verifiably) were found earlier than Fumio have fairly large ammounts of material on them online. "The most famous" one, Hiroo Onoda who was found in 1974, had international media attention and a presidential pardon. If Fumio had been found a full six years later, how come nobody cared? How come there is practically zero information anywhere on this guy? The one external link goes to a website on holdouts, at http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/. It is a good resource with plenty of info and archival photos on several notable holdouts, but Fumio gets just one line midway down this page. That there is a lot of mentions out there on Fumio suggests that he may have existed. That all the mentions don't have any kind of source of their own, and that there is so little information suggests that he never existed. Keep if we can conjur some verifiable sources, delete if we can't. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost completely empty list. Ideogram 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No one besides the original nominator argues for deleting the content outright. Merging the data is an editorial decision that anyone can perform if they feel like it. - Bobet 18:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article only provides one physical property Inwind 18:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professor and economist. No justification of inclusion shown except for trivial mention in newspapers (which even I have!). Fails WP:PROF. Being a Bangladeshi, I can definitely say that he is not regarded as a significant economist in Bangladeshi media. Trivial mentions (as shown in the newspaper reports) do not count as notability proof. Ragib 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC) •[reply]
The result was no consensus. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has gone unreferenced since I called for valid references in January of 2006. Wikipedia requires that all articles be reference-able by published sources, not self published ones. So documentation by self published online "aquaphile journals" are okay external links but do not factor into the deletion for this article. My question is this: is there a published, valid source that can verify the use of the term "aquaphilia" as it is used on this page. I understand that this is a somewhat popular fetish, but attributability by published sources is policy on wikipedia, not guideline. In my own search using lexisnexis, Jstor and Google Scholar, I have found that there are scholarly articles related to aquatic erotica, but they never call it aquaphilia and have not termed it a sexual fetish, the information on the page is related to attributable things, but is itself unattributable to published source. Lotusduck 18:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Glitches found in the Pokémon video games. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:01Z
Poorly written stub about what seems to me to be a non-notable topic; written entirely as an instructional guide and cites no references. Brandon Dilbeck 18:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rules of these matches are all well covered on List of professional wrestling match types. This page will never be more than an unnecessary list of results. «»bd(talk stalk) 18:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Wodup 05:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. "Luddite fallacy" gets 57 hits on Yahoo and 118 hits on Google, many of which are mirrors of the same article on Jeremy Rifkin. Apparently there is a source for the term but if there is, there is nothing here that isn't already covered better in the critical section of the article on Luddism. Dragomiloff 19:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Dragomiloff 20:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not at all notable Wjousts 19:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11, with text like "Our staff actively contributes to international scientific conferences". Sandstein 20:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP PoliticalJunkie 19:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Respect - The Unity Coalition. Mergers can be done from history, but should involve only content attributed to reliable sources. These are currently lacking. Sandstein 08:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable student organization. Delete and redirect to Respect Party. --Nlu (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only evidence this class exists is a number the aritcle's author found within an artist's impression on a flyer distributed to local residents. Given the intended audience of the flyer, there is no reasonable expectation that the publishers would have verified such a piece of technical ephemera was accurate. The topic area is already well-covered at London_Overground#Rolling_stock Dtcdthingy 19:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:02Z
This seems like a vanity article. It consists entirely of writing of this Colin Leslie Dean person, and does not seem significant in any way. See also the talk page for Absurdism darkskyz 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced list, no references, appears to fail WP:NOT and WP:ATT. Dragomiloff 20:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:03Z
Non-notable individual TigerShark 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Xenomorph (Alien). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:04Z
A pointless list of names for the Alien featured in the Alien films. Fan fluff and OR. Driller thriller 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no merger. Xenomorph (Alien) is full of inconsistencies in the canonical description of the creature. Giger's Alien directly addresses the inconsistencies of the canon of the aliens creature, but only to the point of how the creatures are named as to avoid redundancy. The information in the xenomorph article could necessarily change due to future additions to the fictional universe. On the other hand, the accurate information on the GA page can only be added to. So while the canon of xenomorph is temporally based on new input, the GA page is a history of different incarnations of the creature (which uses the names the creature is called as landmarks). Combining the two articles would complicate things by either removing information or requiring both a canon and a historical analysis of the changes in the steps of the canon. There are other articles on wikipedia that have similar dual (or more) pages on different ideas behind a subject. These two articles may be about the "same" subject (the creature), but they are not addressing the same ideas. Maybe GA needs work, but xenomorph is not a perfect article either. That is the point, so the GA article is not pointless. I disagree that it is fan fluff. Batman Dead End, for example, is fan fluff. It is not canon (other than how it appears on imdb.com), nor does it matter to any aspect of the canon. In addition, there are many places on wikipedia where information is not absolutely exclusive to one (and only one) article. The information on these two pages, and the separation of the two subjects, better allows for the understanding of the creature, and the ways the creature has been interpreted by so many writers, artists, producers, etc. --Trakon 14:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to West Chester Area School District. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:05Z
Non-notable elementary school. Tarret 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is simply the curriculum vitae of a web-developer (appart from the section that reads "On December 16, 2006 Alex got engaged to his girlfriend Kathryn Staczek."). He may have worked at notable companies like Netscape, but this doesn't make one notable, no matter how good one could have been on his tasks. Google returns a great number of hits for his name, but most of them are posts by himself on open forums or his profiles accounts on a diversity of websites. The article seems to be maintained by the person in question himself, User:Alexrudloff, that also wrote the bulk of the article about his "long time business partner Gavin Hall" Abu badali (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 01:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This mall is generally unremarkable when compared to similar malls. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:06Z
Hoax. I can find absolutely nothing about this person nor can I find anything on any of the books this person supposedly authored. This is the third incarnation of this article, the other two were nonsense articles as well. IrishGuy talk 21:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable school Chevinki 21:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Sam's Town. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:07Z
Very short article, contains no info on the song itself, despite being created about five months ago. ErleGrey 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Dihydrogen monoxide hoax wannabe. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:08Z
A "health awareness campaign" working to spread the word about a "highly infectious disease" which "is as of yet medically unidentified." Can't find any references about this and can't glean anything out of Google about it. It fails WP:V and could be WP:HOAX. De-prodded without comment. - IceCreamAntisocial 22:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has not been edited since its creation, suggesting a lack of interest in the article and the subject of the article seems to lack notability. Also, there are no links to this article from other pages. GDon4t0 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sections on usage and popular culture are Original research besides. De-prodded with comment "it is encyclopedic." I disagree, it's Wiktionaric. Already transwikied. Pan Dan 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, blanked by author.
Article about "an active and known orginized crime family" with no sources. Google and Google News don't turn up any meaningful results for searches including Laranjeira crime, Laranjeira "Cosa Nostra", Laranjeira Linwood (the town claimed as their base). May be an attempt to smear someone named Laranjeira. FreplySpang 22:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:11Z
- - :England and Wales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
All of the material on this page is already present in the entry on Wales. It is also better handled there. England and Wales has no particular meaning when there are entries for England, Wales, Britain and the United Kingdom --Snowded 22:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep - admitted WP:POINT nomination. Newyorkbrad 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)))[reply]
This is actually an object lesson in demonstrating that separate notability guidelines for songs are, in fact, needed. Technically, this, as written, does not demonstrate itself as meeting the general notability guidelines, but I find it hard to argue that the song is not actually notable. So, I'm throwing out that it should be deleted as the rules stand--which is true--and seeing what comes of it. Devilot 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about a local shopping center with grocery and drug stores. Shopping center entries should be limited to those that at least have two department store anchors or are notable in some other way. Otherwise we would be violating Wikipedia is not a directory. Proofreader J-Man 22:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into SAT. KrakatoaKatie 03:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive, but I don't think it's notable enough to warrant an article Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability. Link to affiliated group takes you to a disambiguation page that does not list that group, so even the group, which could conceivably meet notability, does not have a page. Proofreader J-Man 22:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this page and disagree becuase,1) A-M is famous over the internet (mostly myspace) and i personally know him, and 2) there is a group called ALB and there is a link on that page that takes you to the website. so In my opinion, I think that the wikipedia page of A-M should not be deleted for it appears noble.
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 19:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable, small, private school that is written like an advertisement. It has no actual links and google has very little actually about it. Reywas92Talk 22:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to fix that.. Actually, I will. I do not want it deleted. Sir Intellegent 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That good enough? Sir Intellegent 23:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally will go though all of the entries and eliminate any of the entries that violate wikipedia rules. I don't know who put the things other than the 1st paragraph in there, but it was not me. And to Denni, I wiped out a paragraph to remove the "advertising" theory. If I must, I will also wipe-out the other paragraph that is more than 2 sentences long to fix this problem. No unneutral articles from the students of this school will be winners of this said competition. Sir Intellegent 18:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) Once again that wasn't me but, in my opinion, I think that might look good enough. It grew quite a bit... I will quickly patch that up, and let me know if that is good. Sir Intellegent 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I was going to do was that the entries were to e-mail me, I would pick the top 5 that follow Wikipedia standards, send them to the admin of the school, get the cleared one, and post it creating any needed formatting and etc. But, what's on there right now looks good enough for now or indefinately. Sir Intellegent 01:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point, so feel free to add the so called "neutrality" tag to it because I can't find it. I will also work on the citations asap. Sir Intellegent 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed, so listing at AfD. Appears to be a copy of the Brooke Hogan article, including biography details (homeschool, arrangement with record producer, FHM) and even the cite needed tag on album sales. Without third-party coverage of this person (outside myspace), fails WP:MUSIC guideline. Gimmetrow 22:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
listcruft, non-notable Chevinki 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for no indication of being real. Friday (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax entry based off of a band bio located at Route 66 killers. Was listed as A1 although it obviously wasn't - if true, it's not an A7 and shouldn't be deleted anyway, but if it's an actual hoax entry, obviously it should go. badlydrawnjeff talk 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, no outside sources, biggest meat of article is a quote from an individual of questionable notability himself Autocracy 23:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Johnny Appleseed. Friday (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute lack of notability. Contains 1 and a half line of information, none can actually be added, as there is anything else to say. Apparently, it could just be mentioned if there was a paragraph about this advertisement on the iPhone Article.
The result was Redirect to Irving Independent School District. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-14 12:12Z
No evidence of notability put forward. Just another middle school. Dennitalk 23:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 02:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posted as a contested PROD. While Mrs. Lamm was married to two notable figures, her notability besides that is not established. Does not pass WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (default to keep). - Bobet 18:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that an individual magazine article meets notability standards, nor does the list that this one comprises, which is neither a prize nor an award. Mr. A. 23:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. CSD A7. kingboyk 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress with a single minor role in a film and some minor TV appearances. Fails WP:BLP and WP:BIO. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 23:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
