The result was delete ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Apparently) autobiographical article that doesn't assert notability of subject until it gets near the end. The "Henry Ford II Falcon Film Fest" sounds reputable, but doesn't come up with anything relevant in Google (not even changing the wording around a bit), and there is little for "City Boi" that shows its notability. Fourohfour 00:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jeff Defender 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unpublished book series, created by the author "so when I do publish the book some people have an understanding of the book right away, and also to save me some time." An obvious deletion, but books aren't included in CSD#A7, and my prod was removed by the author. —Celithemis 00:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to sophomore slump. Jersey Devil 06:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(taken from deletion prod) Neologism, unsourced (and my opinion) a worthless article, not sourced, untrue in places, not useful and maybe better off in a dictionary? Thedreamdied 00:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11 spam, author using the article to promote his nonnotable website. NawlinWiki 00:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like no more than an advertisement to a myspace page. Also the idea behind such an article is implausible, "cool" and "webcast" have their own entries and their sum is no more than the combination of their parts. I would have used "speedy deletion" but this article has already been edited by several and resisted a "prod" (deleted by an anonymous editor). Eldar 00:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. alphachimp 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable game element ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Bucketsofg 21:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. A search through Google reveals only self-published sources, no WP:RS. Leuko 00:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus ViridaeTalk 10:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic list of quotes with almost no content attached, possible candidate for wikiquote but not here. Vicarious 01:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. – Sasquatch t|c 17:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Minor actor. Peter Rehse 02:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:11Z
This article's subject is unverifiable; I can't find any mention of an Anna Shulgin or Shulgina that matches the article's description on Google, outside of Wikipedia mirrors. The article makes some extraordinary claims but provides no substantiating evidence. Even if substantiated, the subject's claim to notability is somewhat dubious. --Muchness 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Majorly (o rly?) 21:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put a notability tag on this article in October 2006, and there have been no improvements since then. Seems to be non-notable and unencyclopedic. →EdGl 03:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minimal variation on the Dvorak keyboard. All content on this page originates from the same user; notability not asserted. No keyboards are manufactured with this layout, and all google hits seem to be for the creator's site, Wikipedia content, forums, or blogs. Krimpet 03:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pisspoor article which deserves to be deleted. Largely unsourced biography (and so tagged since December 06) of ANTM runner up with a pedestrian modelling career subsequent to the show. All except one of her modelling credits appears to be as a direct result of her participation in ANTM. Ohconfucius 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It's almost pure listcruft -- certainly not worthy of inclusion. alphachimp 00:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic listcruft. One has nothing to do with the other. MSJapan 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. An essay based on personal opinion and original research. Spends most of its time arguing that there hardly is any Australian erotic poetry, which would suggest that we don't need an article on the topic. —Celithemis 04:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
more sources and references have been added
The suggestion for two articles makes no sense. There seems to be no good reason why there cant be an Australian erotic poetry article just as there would be no good reason why there cannot be a modern or post-modern poetry article. Why categorise the poets under Australian poets then sub categorise them under erotic poetry -makes no sense- why not just put the poets in an article dealing with Australian erotic poetry-there seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry
Geee why does being a strange article mean it has to be deleted - this must be a purely subjective valuation . Others say the article is interesting. Tthere seems to be some unspoked issue with an article called Australian erotic poetry
GEEE you say no reliable sources yet one of my sources is straight out of the Wikipedia database- All this is getting a bit out of hand people are just pulling things out of the air to justify deleting the article It seems if someone gives a negitive valuation every one else just follows suit.I have come to the conclusion that the deletion of the article has little to do with its content but rather some other unspoken issue with the article. I draw this conclusion from viewing the range of contradictory comments: some say the article is nonsense other say it is interesting some say it is not notable other say it is moderatly notable some say it canot be sourced other say it can be sourced some say it should be rewritten other say it needs just a bit of work. All these contradictory reasons indicate to me that a lot of subjective feelings are going into the reasons for its deletion. An article cannot generate such a wide variety of opinions if it was fundamentaly flawed. A fundamentaly flawed article would have more consensus regarding reasons. Every time I answer an argument the gaol posts are moved . This indicates that people have it in their minds-for what ever reasons-that this article should be deleted and as such will just go on producing arguments no mater what counter arguments is presented-the goal posts will always be moved to accomadate their feelings about the article— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
I have added a link to colin leslie dean's erotic poetry that can be downloaded free. If this does not satify you i dont know what will-if the link is deleted after expecially asking for some examples of erotic poetry then I just throw up my hands- since it would then seem there are unspoked issue around the article topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamahucher (talk • contribs)
There is nothing wrong with creating entries that adds to the knowledge pool even if they happen to be about one person-there is no universal law saying a person canot be multitalented. You obvious obsession in hunting down such minute detail about what entries have been placed speacks volumes about what may be just personal bias and hostilty or some other unsavory human disposition. A commentator asked for some erotic poetry erxamples so i give a link and all you can do is find some problem with it GEEE have you some big problem with the erotic
This is ridiculous It like saying that because someone puts entries about Sir Richard Francis Burton in Wikipedia in such entries as anthroplogy poetry india arabian nights etc he has a vested interet in pushing him. This is all getting a bit silly and really speacks volumes about unspoken issues
I donot publish mr dean I publish topics and themes he has contributed to. This article is not about mr dean it is about erotic poetry which he has contributed to. If mr dean happens to be multitalented why does that preculded the areas he has contributed to from excluision from WikipediaMr dean did not invent Australian erotic poetry -that was created by the National Library of Australia. Are you saying that because he is not a world famous person he cannot appear on Wikipedia. ARE YOU SAYING ONLY WORLD FAMOUS PEOPLE CAN APPEAR ON WIKIPEDIA. Are you saying that mr dean canot have any entries about areas he contributes to I think that is patently ridiculous We have moved from not notable to original research to not enough sources to no examples of erotic poetry to now conflict of interest. It seem you all just jump on the next badwaggon that comes along. What next will it be perhaps becuase the the article was written with my left foot that makes it illegitment. We have moved from attacking the article to now character assinating the author-where will this all end really getting silly and speacks volumes for unspoken issues. All this new bandwaggon of cohorts simpply because I was asked for some examples of erotic poetry. Get real you asked for it I did not give it till asked -so if I was pushing dean why wait to be asked and not just give the link initialy
If I wrote articles about Sir Richard Francis Burton and owned a bookshop that sold his book would that be vested interet and exclude me from writing such articles. Are you saying bookshop owners canot wriite articles which therir books deal will Get real . If you did not want examples of erotic poetry you should have not askedNo matter if I put a small quote from mr dean all this conflict of interest would still arise. I am afriad that you have set in your mind like some world leaders a course of action and no matter how your arguments are refuted you just keep moving the goal post each time . As I say your obsession with hunting mr dean on google really speacks volumes for an obsessive mind with untoward dispositions
go to the Auslit Resourse for Australian Literature website http://www.austlit.edu.au/ and type in colin leslie dean to see that he is a notable Australian erotic poet by being listed- you may need to subscribe or your library may give you access. And as I Say if you where around in 1790 you would delete an article on romantic poetry featureing Wordsworth- notablity is no criteria for value just as being disparaged is no criteri for inablity- I recall Galileo was disparged in his time to IMr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress
you harp on about notablity but i can see your moputh drop when you read this Mr dean is also in cambridges publication 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century as an Australian poet philosopher if you have a copy have a look- if that aint notable then nothing is . If you have access to worldcat-the library database you will see mr dean has books at such univserities as yale Harvard and the library of congress. Once again you change the goal posts. You want notablity i gave it to you and you just ignore it-once again unspoked issues 2000 outstanding scholars of the 21st century is not a pay for vanity publication you saying that really indicates you cant handle mr deans notablity and must try and proove to yourself by any illusion it cant be that he is notable I suppose you are going to say Yale Havard and the library of congress only put books in catalogue based upon vanity domination-GET REAL-you trying to dispage mr dean is reaching the hights of the ridiculous
if you want library holdings as a giude to status As Isaid mr dean is in "Dictionary of international biography" the National Library of Australia has 3 entries and there are 227 entries ib library around australia. He is also in 2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century and this is meantioned at the National Library of Australia. He is in international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia which is in the National Library of Australia. He is also in Whos who in the 21st century the National Library of Australia has and there are 16 entries for libraries in Australia
you all talk about original research not wanted but Wikipedias entry for International Biographical Centre is completly original research even with a long list of items foun on a google search. If it is good for one why not others-there is a bit of biased selection going on here
you say surprisingly mr dean is in a number of Australian libraries if you had of checked the sourse i give in the article you would have seen that-you all say I dont give sources, I do but you all dont even bother to look at them
conflict of interest as the name of the author (and main "keep" proponent on this AfD) is the same as the press which publishes one of the poets in question, and may thereby have a vested interest in promoting the work. I don't know if this is the case or not.
you want notablity mr dean is also in these books from cambridge "2000 outstanding intellectuals of the 21st century", "Dictionary of international biography 32ed edition", "Whos who in the 21st century first edition" "international whos who in poetry and poets encyclopedia fourth edition, to name a few- any one care to check feel free YOU ALL ASKED FOR NOTABLITY AND VERIFIABLITY eat your words about an amatuer no-hoper never trust wannabes on the net forums they have not the ability to see ablity- particularly when it is not mainstream pulp
nevertheless as your link points out entry is based on merit and not a pay for entry-even if nominated you must have merit to be included - and they are not a vanity press even if entrants pay for bigger spreads they must have merit to be included -eat your words. As i say there is a lot of effort to disparage mr dean that borders on psychological obsession
One final point - I see that amongst your edits to Wikipedia is one where you edited an article on a CD of music called Erotic Poetry to include a copy and pasted section from this article [[12]], all about Mr Dean. Can you really deny that you are Mr Dean? Or that his article and every other edit you have made is designed to promote yourself? StuartDouglas 17:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you link specificaly says merit is required and there is no payment for entry -only for wanting a bigger spread or wanting to an award. But the article states merit is required and that payment is not required for entry. you contradict yourself and show your agenda when you say "the article says it is superficially true to say that there is no need to pay" then say,"they have paid to get in" I am courious you asked for examples of erotic poetry has any one gone to the link and download any free books of erotic poetry - you asked for examples so how about commenting on some. YES I pasted to the erotic poetry becuase it is obvious that this article wil be deleted so just trying to get some information about Australian erotic poetry on Wikipedia StuartDouglas has obviously a bee in his bonnet as he has intiated discussions on two of my entries Anti-poetry and Meaninglessness. These articles are not about colin leslie dean, but about areas that he happens to have contributed to It is not my problem that colin leslie dean is at the cuting edge of new ideas and new trends. There was a time when the only entry under "relativity" would have been Einstien. So dont blame colin leslie dean or accuse me of promoting him if he is one of the only ones in certian important areas -like Wordsworth or Einstein where at one stage
I am outstounded It seems wikipedia is no more than a poor mans encyclopedia brittanica. It seem to be aligible for entry in wik you must first be in encyclopedia brittanica -so why not just go to encyclopedia brittanica . So much for open sourcing and internet democarcy Once again mainstream takes control of the net Wik may as well just get payed monkeys typing AUTHORATIVE articles so it can sell them to the highest bidder ie encyclopedia brittanica. It seems all wik is is a watered down version of brittanica with articles which just reproduce briitanica written by amateurs who in effect just paraphrase more authorative sources.
The result was G10 - NYC JD (make a motion) 02:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional character supposedly played by a real person on an Australian program called the "Newington College Show. However, I can't find any evidence that the program exists. Appears to be a character on a non-existent tv show. ArglebargleIV 04:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Majorly (o rly?) 21:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:Notable in any way. Carl Watner may have written a number of books and articles, but nobody actually writes about him.
Also, I asked on the talk page about his notability in October 2006, and there was no response — which I think further confirms that this person is, in fact, not notable at all, and that the article is merely a promotional blurb. Bi 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given and possible bad-faith spa nom. MER-C 08:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attack article. Stratherian 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Deletaeporn. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only a neologism, but a neologism created yesterday. The author of this coinage is more qualified than most, and I agree with his sentiment, but a neologism with no history of use that's 2 days old at most is just not notable. Deranged bulbasaur 05:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:08Z
Is this truly an incorporated location? --prev. speedy by other ed.,but I think discussion needed DGG 05:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:42Z
This is an attack article on a living person. Subject is not notable as there are no news articles, books etc used as sources. Stratherian 05:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC) — Stratherian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete, no sources, non notable, possible WP:COI issues. Dakota 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article. Has not been improved in one year since first nomination. Non-notable. Still contains no references or sources. Btl 05:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a failure of WP:CSD G11 and WP:CORP. alphachimp 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability? Guroadrunner 05:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, but merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to keep his story out of personal interest, but it fails notability and the article is pretty messed up to begin with Guroadrunner 05:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Draft Condi movement. --Coredesat 05:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisment. No legit notability in article. No notability in any linked persons. No references or sources. External links are all promotional. Btl 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 17:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, very few hits on Google, and the term is not found in online dictionary sources Guroadrunner 06:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Comesuntbob (talk · contribs) admits it's "mis-information". —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 11:03Z
Contested PROD. Unverified, and apparently unverifiable technology. An editor points out that the timing of its advent and its supposed origins in XML suggest a hoax. I agree. Shunpiker 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No news on his death, random text MatthiasG 06:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC) http://www.debakeydepartmentofsurgery.org/home/content.cfm?menu_id=43&pageview=fac_item&fac_pk=97&view=pt_brief doesn't mention it and I don't find anything on Google News. MatthiasG 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no sources and feels like original research. Neither of the external links uses the term cuddlebuddy, or even buddy; and the more encyclopedic of the two external links doesn't use the word cuddle either. Vicarious 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. alphachimp 00:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely enough, all of the Google hits for this manga relate to its Wikipedia article, making it potentially non-notable. Any manga experts know if its notable? Guroadrunner 07:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability. NawlinWiki 19:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an unknown new band that hasn't released an album yet. Not to be confused with Deceased (band). Furthermore, the editor's username and the subject's obscurity suggests that the editor is bandmember Lazer Von Corpsegrinder, making this also a conflict of interest. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin Rama's Arrow as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G12. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Direct copyvio of a biography on http://www.minyanville.com/ (scroll down) - notability questionable Guroadrunner 07:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Article makes claims of touring the UK and eastern US, although this is very doubtful and unproven. According to this link, their only CD release is home-made. Their website http://www.the-o.tv/ no longer active. Canley 08:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 05:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A philantropic organisation and its founder. Reads too much like an advert. Are they notable? -- RHaworth 08:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:39Z
Obvious POV fork of Muhammad. On the article talk page, the creator all but admits this. I reconsidered the speedy because "screed" is specifically excluded. Deranged bulbasaur 09:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seems to be notable Alex Bakharev 22:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this group is at all notable. The google hits refer to it (most refer to other things) are all from its own website. At best it's the obscure work of a handful of people who have little presence outside the internet. Stringops 20:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a surprise that this was nominated.RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The members of this organisation make it notable, all 4 of the most prominent republican movements in the commonwealth of nations. Here is some evidence of notability http://www.canadian-republic.ca/common_cause_media_release_04_06_05.html http://www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/news&events/news.htm http://www.republic.org.uk/commoncause/index.htm RepublicUK 08:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions Are these constitute organizations themselves notable enough to have wikipedia articles? (I didn't see them on a quick look). Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Answer Yep, at least the Canadian organization is listed, so.... Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Comment If they answer to the question above is 'No' then I'd suggest that the aggregate isn't notable either. If the answer to the above is 'Yes', then I'd suggest that aggregate is also notable. Bo 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Component Organizations are Notable, the fact they feel it helpful to form an alliance, and have done so is also 'notable'. Bo 14:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by User:Neil. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:59Z
This article is an essay, and includes an introduction, and conclusion. It also may be original research as a synthesis of of the other sources cited in the reference. Note that this article also exists as an entry in wikibooks. Whpq 13:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:58Z
Since this article was created it's been bogus. Note the references to "Ben Dover", and mafias. If you read the article carefully you'll basically notice that it's crap. It's been continuously edited, making it even worse from the original. "English porno film directors", is not a reference to individual directors, but a moronic article about Ben Dover and his mafia woman.
I hope this can be deleted asap.
Beelake 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One wonders who Beelake is! Also his motivation for wanting to suppress the truth and freedom of speech? Porn Gold by David Hebditch and Nick Anning two highly respected authors has also been suppressed it seems! The truth is that an investigation of Ben Dover and Mike Freeman and the raid on Videx Ltd will uncover corruption at extremely high levels. Where is "mafia women" mentioned? Mike Freeman, film director and former director of Videx Ltd http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/books.htm— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.83.9.8 (talk • contribs)
No-one has commented on Porn Gold and perhaps to be fair they should read the references on Mike Freeman before commenting further. Porn Gold by David Hebditch and Nick Anning is a hardback and is available from libraries on request. It is also online to official librarians. Linda Pow, teacher.
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 20:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism; Violates WP:NFT.Hondasaregood 15:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This article was deleted in a second nomination.
The result was no consensus, does need cleanup though. Jaranda wat's sup 06:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. Sad story, but non-notable. Arbiteroftruth 06:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's a passage from WP:N on notability --- Notability is generally permanent
If there are multiple independent reliable published sources that have a topic as their subject, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time. The reverse is not true; subjects may acquire notability as time passes. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the subject may be notable in the future.
---
With that said, do we expect this person who has since departed to retain the "notability" (if we can even call it that) 6 months from now? True, her families will remember her, but people as an ordinary citizen, people like me, would most likely (pretty much certain to) move on. I don't think any Average Joe would continue to mourn this person's passing after a few weeks.
Like I said earlier, what I am doing here is unclouded by conflicts of interests, as we cannot let our emotions get in the way of editing Wikipedia. My sympathies are with the Karhohs family for their loss, but this is not, was not, and will never be, a ticket to an article on Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black Falcon, if we take emotions out of it, this article has not passed the threshold by any length. Hence, the rule that it will never pass the threshold. It never reached the standards for inclusion! Arbiteroftruth 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about we move the page to Karhoh's userpage, and delete the main entry on Wikipedia? Arbiteroftruth 19:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge, I am obviously leaving it to the editors. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article a long time ago, hoping that somebody would expand upon it and make it notable enough. However, it hasn't happened, and doesn't pass WP:CORP or WP:N. It's time to get rid of it. --Адам12901 Talk 06:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability questionable, and based on a brief media storm around a preprint that quickly died away. Does not seem fair to brand here as the mathematicians who claimed to have proved Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness but was mistaken. It was just a preprint, and preprints are not publications Billlion 12:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by User:Allen3. Majorly (o rly?) 16:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At best a definition; uncited, List of sexual slang terms cruft. Delete. ChronicallyUninspired 23:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Make sure that it gets a mention on the artiste page. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable song (not a single, does not receive radio play), and the page has been deleted before. The entirety of the article is original research. –King Bee (T • C) 14:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Dismissed. ((sofixit)). —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:57Z
The article reads like an advertisement and frequently contains great errors with regard to history and with regard to the nature of the school. Alkdsjfjife 02:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
somewhat OR, redundant with barely notable SNL 5-Timers Club having it, fails WP:NOT in being an indiscriminate source of info, and doesn't need it's own page. Booshakla 04:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I once went to a far more remarkable school with the same name, 1200 enrolled kids, several Honor School of Excellence awards in NC, and winning A School To Watch award along with only 107 other schools in the country. Yet nobody ever considered an article.
2. The only reason the English Wikipedia has over 1.2 Million pages is because of nonsense like this. As I said, there are much more remarkable schools that have no article or even a passing mention anywhere in Wikipedia. It has only been contributed on by 3 people or their cooresponding IP Addresses. FinalWish 02:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 06:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE
Can the above be correctly summarized as "Not Notable" and "NPOV Violations"? Bo 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand how this works, I nominated it for deletion and you have to prove that it shouldn't be. I know it doesn't publish accounts by their own admission.
February 2007 (UTC)
Comment It has only 50 members 50 out of more than 25% of the worlds population.RepublicUK 12:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their website doesn't seem to even exist anymore. Will people still argure that they are notable?
I have checked out the Forum and apparently it is a server problem. Hamiltonguy 23:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)hamiltonguy[reply]
Comment He just admitted he is registered on their forum, according to the FCS or UCS as they seem to be calling themselves now, that makes him a member. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RepublicUK (talk • contribs)
Comment Why would it be in conflict with my views?RepublicUK 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comments This bickering is quite irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it is in accord with anyone's views or in conflict with them. All that matters is whether it meets wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, namely whether WP:N can be established with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Good editors do not let their personal views dominate their editorial role. Tyrenius 06:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it has been decided that it is not notable, why hasn't it been deleted?RepublicUK 20:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't create this page, I merely nominated the article. I beleive it was someone called 'kafziel' who started this page so don't get bitchy with me, take it up with them'RepublicUK 04:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio. Non-notable list, a google search for "200 greatest israelis" brings up zippo non-wiki ghits. MER-C 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Majorly (o rly?) 16:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated as part of batch which resulted in a train-wreck. These three are once again nominated. For rationale, please refer to User:Ohconfucius/Far2manymasts. Ohconfucius 09:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is simply a redundant list which is unencylopeadic and is currently being handled by the category WA JSHAA Members (Currently up for renaming at CfD to bring into line with relevant policy). thewinchester 09:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 09:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable bio on a non-notable person. Entry claims that he's a world-reknowned philosopher, essayist, and inventor, but that most certainly remains to be seen. Little/no evidence of such are provided outside of those provided by his "new religious movement." This wiki is nothing more than a vanity page made by his followers. Rashaun 09:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1.5 million Zendik magazines containing his work have been sold to date, and many books, Cds, shirts, and other art are purchased by people all over this country and the world every week, which seems to indicate that Wulf Zendik and his work are notable to them. Barnes and Nobles carries "A Quest Among the Bewildered", his auto-biographical novel. Also, sorry about the format mess-up, and sourcing and referencing are still new to me, I'll have them up soon... please bear with me... Jyre 23:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entry does not claim "World Reknowned" status, merely that over the last thirty years of his life his art and writing were known in countercultural circles... Rashaun seems to have a grudge against Zendik... Jyre 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jyre (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep, marginal notability established per the sources provided. The articles need to be cleaned up so as it doesn't read like an advertisement. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, no reliable sources. Daniel Bryant 10:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, no multiple third party coverage per WP:BIO, see WP:AADD. Sandstein 09:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civilian (street artist) a while back as a procedural close and optional relist. In that debate, it was identified (but not held in consensus due to the logistical nightmare) that this artist was very borderline notability. I endorse this opinion, and given it appears no-one else has, I am nominating this article for deletion. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article containing just a definition of a word. Should be put in wiktionary Madhava 1947 (talk) 09:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not demonstrated; only external source is subject's website Parsleyjones 10:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant list, would be better handled as a sub-category under Category:JSHAA Member Schools (Currently up for renaming to reallign with policy) thewinchester 10:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, editors are free to pursue merging as normal. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant list, would be better handled as a sub-category under Category:JSHAA Member Schools (Currently up for renaming to reallign with policy) thewinchester 10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep following improvements. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not a dictionary. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and rename.--Chaser - T 11:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N badly. "Thomas Mini Story Library" gives few Google hits, certainly not multiple reliable sources. Croxley 02:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:WEB; blogs are not reliable sources. Sandstein 10:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Assertion of notability was made by adding an "Awards" section, though the awards don't seem to be notable themselves, and in some cases are not that accurate. For example, "Runner Up" is actually 7th or 10th runner up, and "Winner" was because there were no other competitors in the category. I guess using footnotes to link to every single page on the site set off my WP:VSCA radar. Contested A7 speedy and prod. Leuko 10:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed as a Webzine link here as being "one of the Web's premier comic book and pop culture resource sites".
That said, I think the main reason for retaining an article on this - and other comic news sites - has been said best here. --Daelf1969 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't merely discussion forums; they're articles that are featured on the respective sites' front pages. That's how a lot of comics news Websites operate.
I'm all out of arguments on this. If you guys can't see the merit, well there's not much else I can do. Fans and professionals in the business know what the sites rep and importance is, and as such I thought it would be cool to have the site featured here.
After the amount of hassle I've had to go through just to (most probably) see my first contribution wiped, rest assured I won't bother to contribute any further articles to this or any other Wikipedia-affiliated sites. It's just not worth the time and effort. --Daelf1969 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also have a link from Greg Pak's offical news page linking to comixfan. --Shaoken 06:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very nice man in an important organization, but he is personally not notable as a rabbi to qualify for a biographical article on Wikipedia at this time. Maybe in five years time if he becomes truly famous. There may also be a touch of WP:COI (formerly WP:VANITY) in this three-lined stub. IZAK 10:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close, page is a redirect. Already listed on RfD. --ais523 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The spelling of the redirect is wrong, hence no redirect necessary. Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Chaser T 12:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like promotional vanity, article created by SPA whose only contributions have been promoting this person. No attribution from reliable sources, and little indication this person passes WP:MUSIC. Moreschi Request a recording? 11:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: original research with no sign of attributable sources. Precedents for deletion: Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar, New Earth Calendar, Sol Calendar and The 30x11 Calendar --Pak21 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to propose new ideas unless they have been discussed at some length in the media. Mike 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I had nothing to do with the article's appearaning on Wikipedia. Delete at will. --Robert Pontisso
Merge and Redirect to Lunisolar calendar. The content is based on a simple calculation as per Wiki policy (What is not original research?) and serves as a well-written example of a Lunisolar calendar, which is a main type of Calendar reform. Since we are mentioning precedents, these articles were not deleted: Symmetry454 and Pax Calendar. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod was removed, thus listed here. The person does have a Turkish Wikipedia article, but the English version has no assertion of notability and no sources listed. If someone speaks Turkish, please check the notablity on the Turkish page and comment Travelbird 10:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Advertisement for small non-notable company in San Diego. —Ocatecir Talk 12:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John Reaves (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir Talk 12:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | English-language sources should be used whenever possible, because this is the English Wikipedia. Sources in other languages are acceptable if no English equivalents have been found. Published translations are preferred to editors' translations; when editors use their own translations, the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves. | ” |
The result was merge to Vita Craft Corporation. John Reaves (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Reads like an advertisement. Sources do not meet criteria of substantial independent work or multiple non-trivial works. —Ocatecir Talk 12:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, reads like an advertisement. Weak sources. —Ocatecir Talk 12:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep after reversion. NawlinWiki 16:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient evidence of notablity. Prod removed by creator without comment or addition of sources, creator's username (Willholder) indicates a probable conflict of interest FisherQueen (Talk) 13:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion. Carabinieri 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no assertion of notability. The user has created other articles related to this that have been protected from recreation. Taking to AfD for a community definitive decision. Leebo86 14:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:54Z
Does not assert notability; copyvio (text copied from [41]); probably spam. Schneelocke 14:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:06Z
The article makes a claim to notability but does not prove it with reliable sources. It sounds like a fan site that has a lot of members, but big numbers aren't inherently notable. Leebo86 14:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:05Z
Lacks notability - only 18 Google hits. The only "reference" is a link to a message board (looks like a board where users post fictional creations). Looks like a possible hoax, or someone attempting to advertise his own fictional creation. Dsreyn 14:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:05Z
Undocumented claims. Content is sufficiently inflammatory that it needs to be verifiable in order to be included on Wikipedia. Alvestrand 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion; non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No information given other than that it is a nightclub in Belfast. Not even a link to a website. Veinor (talk to me) 15:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 20:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Of 60 google hits on this subject, almost all are either to this WP article or its mirrors Alabamaboy 16:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:53Z
A Columia University newspaper. Seems to have broken one major news story and has a couple of other sources. Not sure if that makes it notable though. Sasquatch t|c 16:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's not a Columbia University newspaper. It has the following schools represented by individual writers:
|
|
2. It's been the subject of the following non-trivial news articles:
It's been featured in, or used a source in the following non-trivial news articles:
3.It is syndicated by the JTA, and thus appears in newspapers all over the world through that.[61]
--Urthogie 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:52Z
Entirely speculative article about a fictional character from Naruto, which is in violation of the policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unattributed (WP:A); article almost reads more like fanfiction than a factual article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 16:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i beleive this article shouldnt be deleted as it gives out information about the naruto universe uchiha clan & the sharingan,alot is stated & can be used for an information on the sharingan by buddyx0
The result was Delete, stacked votes have been stricken and not considered on the basis of this deletion. Jersey Devil 20:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable local sex offender. Backed by one news article, which does not support many of the details in the Wikipedia article. No reason why this criminal is significant enough for an article per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki 16:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable actress, sounds like it was written by a publicity firm. GhostPirate 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted and salted per WP:CSD G3. GarrettTalk 06:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the notibility that will ever come of this article, this appears to be a house in the RpG Dungeons and Dragons. I do not see any notability in establishing a Wikipedia article for a non-notable organization/game place. CascadiaTALK|HISTORY 17:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP WP:MUSIC is met by the reference provided here to a French top-40 hit. I will add it to the article. Scott Davis Talk 12:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC, he has worked with people who have worked with famous people, apparently has 2 albums but nothing is known about whether they have sold, he was to be the star of some show that never opened, seems a bit thin. He's from Belgium but there are no interwiki links to either a nl: or fr: article about him. Carlossuarez46 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will happily userfy this to anyone who asks to aid in the creation of a category. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list is unmaintainable and a category would serve the job perfectly well. Computerjoe's talk 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:51Z
I think this is probably something someone made up in school one day -- IMDB and Google searches have failed to come up with anything implying that this exists or that any of these people are actors. I asked MadMax, who created it, about it, and he said he did so just to move the information off the page for Jordan Harris (whose IMDB page doesn't mention anything about this movie), and he agrees that it's probably either made up or very NN. My search did turn up the suspicious fact that there's a school in Colorado named Stargate (the supposed setting of the movie), and a teacher at that school named Marcella Embry (one of the supposed actors).[65] Pinball22 18:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:03Z
Non notable Warteck 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. Original link to CNN report now dead, and link to Hubble site appears to be about a completely different object. Furthermore, google reveals that the name came from a description of the object as a 'large pathetic galaxy', and no suggestion that this should be used as its name has ever been made anywhere apart from on Wikipedia. It was detected via its effect on the Milky Way's disk; if it's considered important then it could be mentioned in the Milky Way article. Chrislintott 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC) In case it's not obvious, delete Chrislintott 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin Irishguy as the article falls under the criteria of CSD G11. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR.--TBCΦtalk? 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable Warteck 19:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:01Z
non notable Warteck 19:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 12:00Z
Not notable. Only 86 Google hits for name. Also appears to be a vanity / advertising page. Alabamaboy 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rlevse 01:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person; the claim of notability is that a Japanese pilot who thinks he shot him down in World War II came to find his family. Touching, but is it really encyclopedic? Veinor (talk to me) 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jersey Devil 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as badly indiscriminate list of trivia, almost universally unverified. Mangojuicetalk 20:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Robersonville, North Carolina. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:55Z
No assertion of notability whatsoever. Eligibility for the National Registry of Historic Places is not the same as actually being on it. MSJapan 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Awyong J. M. Salleh 03:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have redirected the talk page of the AfD to here so that people don't put their opinions there (some people have done so) by mistake and have them ignored. Veinor (talk to me) 23:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation; I can't find any independent sources for this. Veinor (talk to me) 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Robersonville, North Carolina. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:53Z
No assertion of notability, and additionally conflates the group with the building. MSJapan 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by User:Fang Aili. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:49Z
Unreferenced article about what appears to be a non-notable student film group. Didn't spot any supporting articles in google search either. Dugwiki 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Kite (song) and Peace on Earth (U2 song), no consensus on the rest. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this song and others on the U2 album All That You Can't Leave Behind on the basis that that these songs, which were not released as singles nor used in any other way that that would suggest they have notability separate from the album. A lot of these articles also would appear to breach WP:NOR (and have already been tagged as such) and the listing of how many times they've been performed is little short of fancruft even for a band as big as U2. A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The other pages nominated for exactly the same reason are:
In a Little While
Peace on Earth (U2 song)
When I Look at the World
New York (song)
Grace (U2 song) A1octopus 21:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:51Z
Disputed CSD A7 and prod. This article has no references to demonstrate the subject meets WP:BIO; her sole claim to fame is working on a speculative TV show that is "planning to be pitched to both CTV and MTV in the summer of 2008". Suggest deletion as a non-notable individual.
See also related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Oaks (TV Show). Muchness 21:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, show hasn't even been produced yet. NawlinWiki 22:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a TV show "in the process of creation". No sources to demonstrate the show exists in more than speculative form. Suggest deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. --Muchness 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate list of trivia about, mostly, Anime and video games. As is usual for articles of this type, this one was created in October last year to remove the irrelevant "popular culture" section of Metatron which is quite a good article. PLEASE don't suggest merging it back there without actually considering how to do so. Mangojuicetalk 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, unsupported by citation to reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and compare websites that turn up in google searchs for 'gang stalking' and 'terrorist stalking'. Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neo/protologism. No sources given for this term. -- Merope 22:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Anna Nicole Smith. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor satellite in the Annanicolesmithsploitation universe. The references say it all: Every single one mentions Smith in the headline, not a single one mentions Thompson. ~ trialsanderrors 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Anna Nicole link to MB well-liked
In the national media these days, his name is splashed around liberally as G. Ben Thompson.
His real name?
Gaither Benjamin Thompson, according to state and local records.
He's a local developer of some note. And you may be living in a house or development he's had a hand in..."(Myrtle Beach Sun News, 18 February 2007)
*Redirect to Anna Nicole Smith per Angr. JoshuaZ 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Abstaining per sourcing given by Lefly, I'm not convinced he should have a separate article, but i'm not convinced he shouldn't either. JoshuaZ 07:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible to maintain, impossible to be exhaustive, and seems to have been created to make a point.Xnuala 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ridiculously racist - see similar article List of Caucasian Americans which is up for speedy delete Warteck 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor notability, non-professional player in youth team Boongoman 23:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-08 10:48Z
This article describes a page which is merely a collection of links to other pages about comic books, stories, and some things totally unrelated. The webpage therefore does not meet the notability standards for webpages on Wikipedia and has very little potential for an article regardless. SeanMD80talk | contribs 23:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity page about a non notable person Tony 23:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm adding the following comments for background. The persons name appears to be Abdullahi, not Abdullah as stated in the article title. The story in the article is not made up, since Google found some hits to back up the claims of winning awards:
I just wanted to eliminate fruitless searching in Google for the wrong name, for those looking for notability. Even so, despite the fact that he has won academic awards, there's an issue if this is enough to qualify for WP:BIO requirements. - Itsfullofstars 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Behzad Mirkhani. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-10 11:50Z
This entry duplicates content found in the Behzad Mirkhani entry. Epolk 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]