The result was delete. Sr13 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A self-proclaimed write in candidate for US president in 2008. Anybody can virtually run for president if they want, and this guy has no shot of winning at all. Most write in candidates don't have articles, and neither should this guy. Borjon22 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete Orderinchaos 12:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A re-created speedy deleted article. The article is poorly sourced and is a vanity project. I am not convinced that a 16 year old kart racer meets notability guidelines. Mattinbgn/ talk 00:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand where you are coming from, however, this young karter is well-known throughout the Australian karting scene and is about to move into the Formula Renault UK Championship. This championship has had current Formula One drivers compete in it and coming from Australia, Aaron is going to be big news in both Australia and the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.14.171.220 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sr13 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable American political group that suceeded the US-Albania Friendship Society Google News Archives turns up nothing. Plain vanilla Google gives 32 hits, none of them from reliable sources. The main point of the article seems to be that the organization is Hoxhaist and not really orthodox Marxist-Leninist, even though it says it is. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Nothing but a list of trivia. --Finngall talk 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay written a number of months ago, then abandoned. Originally prodded by myself, but de-prodded with edit reason "This is far too elaborate and interesting to delete without debate. In fact, I'm not sure why the rationale given justifies deletion at all." Proposing for deletion to gather opinions from others. RTucker 00:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, violation of WP:NOT, WP:OR in some areas. Cool Bluetalk to me 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect due to incoming links and plausible search term. W.marsh 21:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article [2] is essentially a data dump of information from GameSpot. The awards themselves are barely notable. --- RockMFR 01:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable and of minor local interest only. Google hits amount to around 3 on first 2 pages Regan123 22:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally listed at AfD by 68.219.212.254 without a proper discussion. Also was prodded but removed. It's a web forum which doesn't meet WP:WEB. Phony Saint 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No such region exists in the Dominican Republic. For actually existing regions see this two links: [3] and [4]. VirtualDelight 16:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously deleted through AfD. DRV overturned in light of a new evidence. Please consult the DRV before commenting here: the question is "Do the credits of celebrity photographs count as reliable sources of the gentleman's notability?" This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no citations, and doesn't seem to be on an encyclopedic subject. It has been on the cleanup list for over 2 years - should it even be kept around anymore? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be the development team of OpenVistA (a notable piece of software). Now I don't really know whether the 7 people mentioned in the article really had the role that is claimed there but what I do know is that there does not seem to be any reliable source that uses the name HUI7, nor is there any reliable source using the name HUI6. It's also clear by the talk page discussion that the article has conflict of interest concerns and that Wikipedia is being used as a free provider of webspace in this instance. Pascal.Tesson 01:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as CSD A7. Xoloz 02:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is probably a prank. Unsourced and unverifiable per WP:V. pinotgris 01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A three-line article that's been dormant for a year, probably can't be expanded upon, about a fictional gun in Macross, and therefore completely not notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of loosely-related topics, a list of unrelated "metal songs" that just happen to have been featured in unrelated horror films. Indiscriminate reason for a ist of songs, and sets a bad precedent for endless combinations of these "music genre X in film genre Y" type of lists - List of hip-hop songs featured in action films, List of pop songs featured in comedy films, etc. Masaruemoto 01:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nominated in error. Let this article be nominated for deletion by someone with a valid reason to believe it needs to be deleted. --Tony Sidaway 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV overturned a G4 deletion of this article, finding new sources for notability were present. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for fresh consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 01:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as CSD A7. Presidential write-in run is not a "remotely plausible" claim of notability. Xoloz 02:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable only for being a write-in candidate for the 2008 Presidential election, and write-ins don't have the slightest chance of winning. If he raises some important issues later on and gets media attention, then he might warrant an article, but right now he does not. Fails WP:BIO without a doubt.-- Cielomobile talk / contribs 01:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was replace with the rewrite. There seems general agreement that Wikipedia should say something on this topic, and further agreement that the rewritten version is a superior treatment. I'm going to go ahead and delete the present article--as I understand it Uncle G's rewrite is an original creation so we don't need the first for GFDL compliance. If someone feels different we can always merge the histories. Mackensen (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV overturned a G4 speedy-deletion of this page, finding that it is different from the infamous "Male Unbifurcated Garment". This new text is submitted to AfD for consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 02:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Discussing history and ideas that are specific to certain countries or cultures without discussing the places where they are irrelevant is not systemic bias, and inventing a new "unbifurcated garment" concept that doesn't exist at all in any reliable sources is original research. Talk:Men in skirts/Rewrite notes the relationship of men's skirts in Western cultures to other garments in other cultures as a minor point because that's what the sources do. Uncle G 11:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy G12. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged this for proposed deletion but there has been an objection on the talk page. I think it's a poorly sourced article and it seems to be primarily promotional. I could have got it wrong. Further discussion would be good, so here we are. --Tony Sidaway 02:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily delete as patent nonsense under CSD G1.--Fuhghettaboutit 03:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a hoax. I can find no substantiation on the internet or McDonald's website that Flogbert was another name for Grimace, who is a very well known character in McDonald's marketing campaigns. Original author of this article has no other edits. Article fits in a genre (children's pop culture) that is a frequent target of WP vandals.Professor marginalia 02:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (translated) as nom withdrawn. Exists at University of Birjand. utcursch | talk 10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign language article, listed at WP:PNT for 4 weeks (per PNT, after 2 weeks, articles should be listed at AfD). Akradecki 03:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. YechielMan 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on WP:PNT since April 19; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (A2 / WP:SNOW) ZsinjTalk 02:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on WP:PNT since April 19; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on WP:PNT since April 23; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 Tizio 13:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Website with no documentation of notability. Prod contested. Alvestrand 03:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed on WP:PNT since April 23; per PNT, articles listed longer than 2 weeks should be sent to AfD Akradecki 03:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of this university debating organization appears to be extremly iffy. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no information. Terms used are too vague to be useful and stub does not seem to have any scope of growth. It is a communication article, although labelled in Rhetoric, there appears to be another relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chris_Babiarz. Regards, xC | ☎ 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Bleach (manga).
I realize this is not standard closing procedures, since even WP:SNOW closes are usually given more than just a couple hours to sit. However, since the page under discussion is simply a duplicate of the existing article Bleach (manga), this discussion needn't have been brought to AfD in the first place. Since the page title is a potential search term, I'm ignoring a rule here to save trouble and closing the debate now as redirect. The nominator has agreed with me as well (see User talk:Haggawaga - Oegawagga#Bleach duplicate article AFD).
Feel free to come beat me with rubber hoses on my talk page if you for some reason disagree with this. I am not an admin. --tjstrf talk 09:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article with information about the anime already exists here Stormin' Foreman 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, thats about the manga, no about the series! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not completely about the manga. At the bottom of the page there is a table that has information about the entire Bleach franchise, including a list of Bleach episode summaries
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears abandoned by its creator. In its current form, the article asserts notability but doesn't show it. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does Not meet WP:PROF. No independent, reliable sources establishing him as a significant expert or important figure in his field. His publications do not appear to be the basis of a significant number of independent works. Nor does it appear he's won a significant award. He's recently (2004) been promoted to full professor. Work permit 05:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity ZayZayEM 05:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This does seem to be a copyvio of [10]. If something is a copyvio, you don't need to use AFD by the way... see WP:CV and WP:CSD. W.marsh 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional organization doesn't seem to be notable, and the text appears to be highly suspiciously something taken from a copyrighted source. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about the Radiata Stories characters appears to be ... well, too much information. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Beautician and the Beast. History is still there if anyone wants to merge in more content. W.marsh 14:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional language is not significant enough for its own article. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned by its creator, and there's insufficient information about its notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sr13 00:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
University club with no assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and expand. Sr13 00:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, I'd rarely consider a TV show non-notable, but this was previously tagged for speedy delettion, and then the speedy deletion tag was removed without explanation. Right now, there is very little information in this article. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of published works listed, but they don't seem to be past the genre of "what a tenured professor is supposed to write anyway" and therefore don't really establish notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted as CSD A7 by TexasAndroid. --Xnuala (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no assertion of notability for this RPG, and the company that developed it has no article. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, though cleanup would not go amiss. Moreschi Talk 13:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N: does not have multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. It only has two fan sources (Slashdot, which people themselves write the stories; and the Speedrun demo archive, another fan site). No magazine reviews, major gaming site coverage to speak of (couldn't find anything with a quick Google search). hbdragon88 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied per CSD A3. Stormie 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned by its creator, and in its current form consists of only a single external link. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged to Dragonmarked house. I believe g0rg0n has the content, but if anything else is needed please ask. --Steve (Stephen) talk 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a house in the Eberron setting seems to be simply too much information, as Wikipedia is not a game manual. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also proposing the following articles for deletion for the same reason:
The result was keep. W.marsh 14:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I realize it's bad form to just quote policy, but I can think of no better argument for deleting this article than: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." -Groupthink 08:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's not that I dislike America's pasttime, but why does GS have to be a Wikipedia article? Why can't everything that's in this article be merged with the Wiktionary entry, where IMHO it belongs? Groupthink 07:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely uncited, non-notable furry/Redwall/forum-cruft. Term is not used in any reliable sources, and this fandom in general is not discussed in any either. No ghits on term outside of forums. In essence, what we have here is absolutely nothing verifiable, notable, or of interest to a general audience, at least from the research I have done. -Wooty Woot? contribs 09:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem notable: WP:N G1ggy Talk - Chalk 10:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was Keep after the article was improved. Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure. G1ggy! 23:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, I see nothing significant on Google. It also may have WP:BLP issues G1ggy Talk - Chalk 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Pharamond - a voice of reason. I feel like I've been jumped on from a great height by the thought police. I am a Wikipedia virgin and need help rather than knee jerk reactions threatening immediate sanctions. They don't seem to think that UNESCO approved organisations of 83 years standing are a reliable sourceEnsojer 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further links for viewing: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/neille.PDF
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/obarae.pdf
http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=9347&9347_0=15400
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/FERNIG_2.PDF
http://www.unige.ch/fapse/SSE/erhise/ECER2002.html
http://www.montessori-ami.org/ - AMI History Milestones World Conference on New Education, 1929 Ensojer 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
google, which others easily found, thus i concluded that the state of the article was likely more of an issue than its notability. this one needed cleanup, notability and citation needed tags, not... afd at this stage.--Buridan 10:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everybody - have done a fair amount of work over this weekend adding citations, references and photographs. Please advise if this OK and how I can improve it further? Thanks for your helpEnsojer 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by TexasAndroid. Groupthink 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. Emeraude 10:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable show on a STUDENT television channel of the University of Salford, a very minor British university in a suburb of Manchester. It is not available outside of the immediate area and viewership is extremely small. It is most emphatically not a nationally syndicated show. The show is produced by media students from the university (From its own website- "Produced by journalism and production students at the International Media Centre, Salford University, Gloves Off is...". The prosecution rests. Badgerpatrol 10:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine created this month. Definitely nn. Admission of vanispamcruftisement on the talk page. Contested prod. MER-C 10:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus conditional to rewrite. If the article does not improve, redirect to elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 13:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is composed of two parts: a misleading one and a dictionary definition.
A "Physical phenomenon" is a observable event describable by physics -- this is quite literally everything observed, minus some miracles.
Pjacobi 11:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Connes (ISBN 0691004056) defines a physical phenomenon as the result of an experiment whose outcome is the same every time, assuming specified initial conditions; and that lack of reproducibility or lack of ability to convey the initial conditions, precludes something from being a physical phenomenon. Our article on Léon Teisserenc de Bort explains why that definition is important. And contrary to the implication of the nomination above there are quite a few things that are not physical phenomena, or are held not to be, and physical phenomena are not the only kinds of phenomena. There are philosophers such as Mugur-Schächter (ISBN 1402011202) who assert that spacetime is not a physical phenomenon. In A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume holds causation not to be a physical phenomenon, but a psychological one. Naylor, in ISBN 0897894782, defines the concepts of species and fruit as mental phenomena, not physical ones. Nuttin, in ISBN 0898593328, draws a distinction between rain as a physical phenomenon and rain as a psychological phenomenon. Cunningham, in ISBN 0872205185, states that if one applies the duck test to a zombie that is physically identical to onesself, and still concludes that the zombie is conscious, then one has concluded that consciousness is not a physical phenomenon.
I could go on.
The problem here is that these articles are exceedingly bad at explaining the philosophy. They haven't seen any real improvement since 2002. However, that is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason for editors to pick up the aforementioned sources (and many others) and finally improve the articles. The above arguments, that are hung solely from a bad definition given by a poor article rather than from what sources actually say, are flawed. Keep. Uncle G 15:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as an obvious hoax. Mackensen (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, no record of member at Australian Parliamentary website (http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/search_main.aspx) Grahamec 11:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, and move disambig page to Wannabe. Sr13 01:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dicdef with little prospect of expansion. PC78 11:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to François Fillon. Redirect is a type of keep, and it has been pointed out that the content of this article is already available at the target article. Suggest reinstating as a standalone article when and if more sourced information about her (independent of her husband) is made avaiable. Arkyan • (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) - any claim to notability based purely on association, in this case with husband. Mais oui! 11:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been previously speedily deleted before, the information is already covered at Neopets#Avatars, and is not notable. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 21:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a might-have-been opera, a project which never took off. According to Julian Budden (who wrote a three volume work on the composer) Verdi never wrote any music and it's unlikely that Cammarano ever did more than a few rough drafts. Nothing remains of his work. (Another librettist actually did more.) (This is explained in more detail on the talk page.) It is an interesting subject that deserves to be covered in detail on the composers' biography page, however it would be confusing to everybody to have an article on it and have it listed among his works. If we had an article on every project considered by every composer, writer etc. WP would be unusable. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 09:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Not notable: Googling "Campaign to shut down the war machine" -wikipedia yield four Google hits. Google News and Archives similarly turn up nothing. Thought about speedying it, but the endorsements give it a whiff of notability ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing second prod with AfD. Original prod reason was: No assertion of notability per WP:N / WP:ORG. No independent references (WP:V). Borderline db-advert. Prod removed with no comment by anonymous user (although cleanup and reference tags were put up. Second prod had similar concerns. ) Marasmusine 11:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Tom harrison. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see this person being notable or passing WP:BIO, their are also no references so I'm bringing it here. Regards — The Sunshine Man 11:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as an attack article by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I was just about to speedy delete it for the very same reason, myself. Uncle G 14:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable web event. The article does not contain any sources. Cyrus Andiron 12:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD was closed at one point by Daniel; but only for 25 minutes and 6 1/2 days after the debate began anyway - well after the standard 5 day period. It was again closed by Drini, this time 7 1/2 days after beginning, which lasted 23 minutes.
In all of these piles of discussion the consensus was clearly in favour of deletion, mustering both weight of policy and weight of numbers.
--bainer (talk) 12:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]It now seems necessary to expound this a little more for people who haven't understood what has happened so far. Among all of the discussion of the content of the article which occurred in the first AfD and at DRV, there were essentially only two arguments raised:
Not only does the latter argument rebut the former, but the weight of numbers across the whole course of the discussion was behind the latter argument.
I feel that confusion has abounded because of the failure of some people to appreciate the distinction between the person and the meme. There is agreement from most of the people in favour of deletion that the meme may be notable. However the issue in question is the article about the person, and that should not be lost sight of.
The previous AfD on this "internet meme"-star degenerated after several out-of-process closures. DRV overturned that mess. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for full consideration. Xoloz 12:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject appears to be a non-notable "spiritual healer"/psychic/eccentric. Doesn't seem to be represented in national media, biographies etc. --Slashme 12:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entertaining but utterly insane. Nick mallory 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mad as a bag of ferrets all right but the article appears to be reasonable. The only ghit I get is his own website but I'm prepared to entertain a notable nutter on that basis. Maybe we should have a category called that? BTLizard 17:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and difficult to source list, possibly original research and of questionable usefulness: It was my own and so far uncontested proposed deletion, but the list has been split off the main article cleft chin, so looking for consensus seems to be more appropriate and productive. Tikiwont 12:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7. Sr13 01:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and prod removed by author, procedurally sending to AFD. Article is about the admin of a site who is involved with a feud with the "chans". Website does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia in itsself, and all external link are either to one of the "chans", or a site for "People Who Suck", none which are reliable sources. Wildthing61476 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing a nom. Original reasoning follows. Tizio 12:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for deletion on the following grounds:
--DavidTheLion 04:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Lawrence - The article creator admitted to taking all contents directly from the DL article in the first edit, and the show is non-notable alone. Nate 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as a CSD A7 speedy delete; contested by author. See Talk:StykFaktor for some discussion thus far. Sending it to AFD for a broader discussion. Stormie 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There seems to be a reasonable assertion of notability made, 30,000 players and whatnot. On the other hand, verfication is an issue. On the third hand, there is some verification, and the preferred solution is to add more, not delete the article. There may not be any more 3rd-party verification available, though, although some may come along later... no strong win for either side. Herostratus 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as a CSD A7 speedy delete; contested. See Talk:Tales of Pirates for some small amount of discussion thus far. Sending it to AFD for a broader discussion. Stormie 13:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. Can be undone as an editorial decision if the channel is deemed more notable. W.marsh 14:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV overturned the previous AfD result, in light of the new evidence; for which, see the DRV. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is non-notable and possibly original research. Theymos 13:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable --Cjs56 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 01:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no place on Wikipedia. It is not needed, has no references, and would be a waste of time to clean up. The only way to reach this page is to search Wikipedia for "countchoculitis". This should be a quick and painless process to remove this waste of space. OrcShaman42 14:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only information that can be found is the limited info on IMDB, and even there it doesn't mention a DVD release, only an HDTV date. Can be recreated if/when concrete info comes up. Joltman 15:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. YechielMan 20:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
promotional; non-notable Tom Harrison Talk 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help! I'm happy to edit this article until it complies with Wikipedia's guidelines and is not promotional. Please help me understand what about the 1 line version is promotional. Also, I'd like to understand criteria for being notable --- given that this is a >1B USD firm, and that there are hundreds of Google searches per day for this company by name, I'm not seeing how it is less notable than many, many company articles on Wikipedia. Thanks! MarkReichard 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[36]MarkReichard 15:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Re-nominate. ZFGokuSSJ1 11:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working to clean up all the Wing Commander related stuff on Wikipedia... this includes removing all continuity/fiction material that has no place on Wikipedia whatsoever. It's non-notable. ZFGokuSSJ1 15:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also continuity and have no place on Wikipedia.
(For the record, the following articles also had AfD notices attached but were not actually listed here: Pre-WC1 Confederation fighters, Winston Chang (Wing Commander), Arrow light fighter, Battleships (Wing Commander), KIS Sivar, Kilrathi Heavy Destroyer, Kilrathi Light Destroyer, Medium fighter, Miscellaneous Wing Commander fighters, Ralatha-class Destroyer, Spencer "Skip" Banbridge, John Dekker, Gilkarg nar Kiranka, H. Maximillian Kruger, Jacob Manley and Kevin Tolwyn. Bryan Derksen 09:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Keep, There is no way so many articles are justified in ONE AFD, this sounds more like someone has an axe to grind. Who decides whether something is 'notable', is it personal opinion? Some of the entries are sizeable and well detailed. Douglasnicol 18:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be some kind of fictional universe, micronation or cult. The writing is very in-universe, there is minimal context, there are no sources. The PROD tag was removed by the original editor. Delete, unless sources can be found, some context can be given, and the content can be improved. J Milburn 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Keep, a failure on my part. A real place, and an informative article. J Milburn 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as pure nonsense.--Wafulz 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author, procedurally sending to AfD. This appears to be a lenghty hoax, as I cannot find anything to verify the information on the page is correct. A Google search for "Dr. Judd" turns up 0 hits for any rappers, a search for "Pimp Daddy Records" turns up 0 hits, the songs listed in the article do NOT appear in any charts for Australian records sales. I'm offer to say speedy for nonsense, except there are claims of notability. Wildthing61476 15:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable high school teacher. This article is lacking in reliable non trivial secondary sources as required per BLP. Awards mentioned in the article are only referenced by the school website and are not mentioned anywhere apart from the website of the organization presenting the award. Mr. Quinn may be an excellent teacher, but he has not distinguished himself any more than any other teacher in his field. The article is also written in an unencyclopedic tone and is saturated with anecdotes from students he has had in the past. Cyrus Andiron 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ~ Anthøny 20:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD which clearly demonstrated that arm waving can overrule policy. Four months later, and the article still fails policy. There is now one reference which somehow (and don't ask me how) verifies A handstand variation can also be used. With the opponent seated on the top turnbuckle facing the ring, the wrestler performs a handstand on the bottom turnbuckle, wrapping their shins or feet around the neck of the opponent. They then bend their legs forward towards the ring, pulling the opponent over and flipping them down to the mat onto their back with a description of Trish less than gently escorted Melina down from the top rope by means of the StratusFear. The entire article is composed of first hand interpretation of primary sources by editors, thus making it original research, as these interpretations have not been published by a reliable secondary source. Fails WP:OR and WP:V, delete. One Night In Hackney303 15:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination as several speedy deletes added and then removed. Trying to find consensus for whether or not article is advertising or non-notable. MightyWarrior 16:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Could still be merged/redirected until the article can be expanded. W.marsh 14:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V issues: [38]. WP:N issues: Brief mention in one book by an Bermuda Triangleist does not make it notable to have its own article. The Evil Spartan 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no evidence of notability or reliable sources, and is a probable WP:COI situation. Prod tag was installed on April 19[39], but was removed by the original author of the page. Promoting to AfD. RTucker 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. What's the conflict of interest here? Freedaemon (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable coinage. Only 52 unique google hits outside wikipedias. `'mikka 17:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Added per suggestion below. Madmedea 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no secondary sources, fundamentally advertising Studerby 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 13:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Update - AfD header removed. G1ggy! 11:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No information about the subject, except for the Unicode codepoint, so it doesn't qualify as a stub. -- Prince Kassad 17:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Nomination withdrawn (changed from neutral to keep). Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article in itself does not seem to be bad, but it completely lacks any sources, and hence fails WP:NN. It has been tagged with "notability" since September 06, but without any improvement. Thus I am sending it to the AfD now. If, however, somebody is able to provide sources during the AfD process, so much the better. Neutral. -- Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject -- B. Wolterding 17:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The call for independent sources was ignored, and sources were what was really needed here. I will consider undeletion if anyone can link me to sources. W.marsh 14:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization that runs candidates for its college's student union (student senate). For an organization at a school where one of the primary languages of instruction is English and in a country with an extensive English language media 20 Google hits and no Google News Archive hits screams non-notability. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many media reports.
The result was delete as the band article was deleted recently too. W.marsh 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Album page makes no claim for notability, and band is up for AfD. Recommend delete. Dchall1 18:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is written like a short story and gives absolutely no information on the actual yacht other than the single line "Overall she appeared to be clearly outclassed by the chosen defender, a graceful and well appointed sloop named Madeleine". Also unnotable subject. 99DBSIMLR 18:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Daft website, but even worse AfD nomination. Sandstein 20:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article follows all the rules. It's referenced, it's notable, and it's reasonably well-written. The only problem is that its subject is extraordinarily stupid. Do we really need an article about bored fans voting for the worst singer in America? I don't think so. YechielMan 18:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable, largely unsourced, no real assertion of notability. WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NN, since notability is neither asserted nor established. No independent sources given. Tagged with "notability" since August 06, but has not improved. Was a contested PROD in last October, so I am sending it the long way here. Delete. -- Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely and utterly non-notable. A google search returned fewer than 1000 results (many of which had absolutely nothing to do with the convention), and several Lexis Nexis searches returned results in the single digits, and none of those were actually about the convention. The google search returned no reliable sources (since there were so few results I had the ability to look through the results and look for reliable sources). Because there are no reliable sources covering this event, the convention fails WP:N. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coast to Coast AM references; hardly "completely and utterly non-notable"--learn how to search websites that are notable within the field of conspiracy. -Єερ² (τ|c) 07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And now a reference from Salon.com[49]--notability noted. Next... -Єερ² (τ|c) 09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Con-Con has been referenced repeatedly on Coast to Coast AM, particularly in regard to notable people who either are or have spoken there (their presence lends it notability, just like a science symposium would be if it was attended by Einsteins etc). This clearly demonstrates the notability of the event, and the fact that it has become notable in popular culture. As for reliable sources, it's a convention about conspiracies held by people who believe in conspiracies so it is only natural that it will be primarily be referenced in conspiracy sources. This is perfectly OK as all we are doing is referencing the existence of the conference, about which there is absolutely nothing redflag. More reliable sources would only be required if, for example, we were trying to prove that it was the world's biggest, or that it was being targeted by the CIA or something similarly extraordinary. - perfectblue 12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media coverage by Studio 360 ([50]) and Metro ([51]), plus treatment in Mother Jones ([52]) and mention by Salon.com ([53]) and Coast to Coast AM ([54] [55] [56]). Tim Smith 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. It's this kind of discussion I wish would occur before an article is nominated in order to give time (at least a week) for the article to be better sourced and "fleshed out"--especially if newly created, as this one was/is. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of notability for this web site. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:NOT, non-notable. Cool Bluetalk to me 19:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arkyan • (talk) 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable rugby player ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a consensus to delete. bd2412 T 13:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
A fan-compiled, unofficial album of Christina Aguilera songs. No apparent coverage by reliable third-party sources. ShadowHalo 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because this is a new phenomenon does not mean it's not an album as defined in the Wiki and just because the music is not pressed on a CD by a record label does not mean it's not seen as an album by all the downloaders playing it on their iPods.
If any of the major search engines did not list a link to the album then I think an article should be in question but the fact that fans of the artist are finding out about the album and if they want to know more then Wiki should be a place to find that information.
The album exists, it's in a new medium, delivery to listener is a new concept unheard of 5 years ago, people globally are downloading and listening to this album, there are huge numbers of Christina and Britney fans to whom this article would be of great interest so why it can't exist on Wiki is something I find puzzling and have called for some third party input.
I am not particularly a fan of Miss Aguilera, I like a couple of tracks but am really a Genesis, Pink Floyd, Alan Parsons Project and Metallica fan but I do think the new phenomenon of fan compiled albums of rare/previously unavailable material distributed via the internet to hundreds of thousands of fans is worthy of a small article on Wiki.
The comment about reliable third-party reference is interesting. If you Google the album title, follow the link and download the album via a bittorrent client or even follow a link in the article to one of two sound samples you will get to hear the music very quickly but if you read the Wiki article Corn chip there is no third-party reference at all, no external links to follow etc etc but I would not challenge the validity of the article or it's place here, it's doing a job and for someone interested in Corn Chips which is all my article purports to do. If someone is searching for a Christina Discography, sees reference to this album but knows nothing about it Wiki now provides information to exactly what it is, where it came from, who is making it available and what songs are included and where they are from originally. Adw uk 09:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Merge/redirect still possible as an editorial decision. W.marsh 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a list of tour dates of a tour that hasn't started, and speculation in the lead paragraph. Will (We're flying the flag all over the world) 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.11.64 (talk • contribs)
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sources added. PeaceNT 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found on Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. A WP:BLP with no sources since 2005. No apparent notability, either: sounds like your average British academic. See WP:PROF. Sandstein 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Withdraw. Sources now added, and people think he's sort of notable (I couldn't say). Sandstein 18:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as an article about unremarkable people, groups, companies and websites. --Seed 2.0 20:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy (see Talk:JinSun Yoo. Person clearly does not meet WP:BIO, author does not understand that the criteria needed for inclusion does NTO include the article being added to Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 19:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English text, been on WP:PNT for more than 2 weeks, per PNT, pages older than 2 weeks w/o translation should be sent to AfD. Discussion at PNT indicates that this is already covered in another English-language WP article. Akradecki 20:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found through Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles. No sources since 2005, and a Google search suggests this article might be a hoax altogether. Also delete this odd picture that used to illustrate the article. Sandstein 20:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No context - what is the article about? See also talk page. Verisimilus T 20:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ~ Anthøny 20:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. A Google search turns up no satisfactory references (most of them are on pages like fakecrap.com). Furthermore, the membership itself is not even notable (by their own admission, this is the nature of the "organization"). Non encyclopedic and non notable. The Parsnip! 20:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please put more effort into looking for sources, especially when the citations hand their locations to you on a platter. The PNC is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 16:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | There is a special club for those who don't make it into Mensa, the high I.Q. society. It is called Densa (really). And I have discovered a secret route in. Here is the admission test: Your editor asks you to take the Mensa test and to write about it in the newspaper. What do you do? If you agree, you don't have to wait for your Mensa score. You are already a member of the American order of idiots. | ” |
As I see it now, the only place for Densa (if kept at all) is in the Mensa article. Otherwise, Delete as before. --CA387 06:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "in pop culture" article. What is the point of listing every single time "that guy in that TV show said that one thing that was like that one thing in SpongeBob!"? This article is just a collection of pointless trivia that violates many different policy pages on many different levels. The Filmaker 20:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another "in pop culture" article. There really is no point to this article. It is simply an article filled with trivial references of "that time that that show mentioned the name Skywalker!") How is this information useful? Some may argue that it paints a picture of how broad the cultural impact of Star Wars has been. However, on an encyclopedia, we're not here to paint a picture. We're here to state the facts in the most elegant, yet efficient way possible. Since it's information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article). This not to mention WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:ATT and probably more policy pages that it violates. The Filmaker 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that you have no interest in Star Wars, but some of us do. It's certainly handy to find all the Pop-culture references to this saga on one page - imagine how much time and effort it would take to find all this information ourselves!! It's certainly a handy reference. And there are many articles on Wikipedia which you would never reference. All of them. Exactly how many of your Uni lecturers (or whatever) will accept WP as a reliable source? And even if they did, what about all the pages for Pokemon, Digimon, Star Trek etc? Doesn't all of those come under the banner of "kind of fun" or "interesting?" Why don't you petition to delete all of them?
Do you want this information, which would have taken several hours to accumulate, to be "lost to the world?" What right do you have to instantly destroy something which took a long time to build without the consent of the builder?
Yoda921 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a non-notable protologism. No sources, and the 87 unique Google hits that this term gets suggests that reliable sources do not exist. Prolog 20:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band lacks notability. The only notable point I could find is the album they released. However, WP:MUSIC requires: "Has released two or more albums on a major label..." That is not the case here. No information found on the web regarding a second album. -- Delete. -- Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page about that single album:
--B. Wolterding 21:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This biography says he was a General. I see nothing further that tells me why he was a General or for what it was he was notable. I hope someone can come up with some further information and save this particular Arbuthnot - if not delete it. Giano 20:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having only skimmed the article yesterday, I decided to read it in full today, with the hope of cleaning up some of the POV and giving my thoughts to the author. However, while reading it I found myself wanting to put a ((fact)) template next to every sentence on the page. This article is hopelessly POV original research. My list of reasons for nominating this for AFD would stretch longer than the article itself, so I ask that anyone who comes across this discussion give the article a good read and decide for yourself. But just to give you some idea, the article is filled with citationless POV claims about the existence of God, various religious beliefs, and acts of God. It is also filled with citationless claims concerning cultural beliefs (the morality of homosexuality, for example). So, to summarize my point again, this is hopelessly POV original research with no references whatsoever. Someguy1221 21:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editor of a magazine ... questionable about whether she's notable. Can't find anything in search engines that doesn't look puffy. Blueboy96 21:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website of a print magazine. Article reads like an advertisement and does not sufficiently establish notability of the print publication (aside from "it's popular" and "it has an international readership") or the website. 710 Ghits. Fails WP:WEB. Seed 2.0 21:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (all) ~ Anthøny 20:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable song, not single, mostly trivial. Delete.
Also nominating these articles from the same album for the same reason(s):
Rehevkor 22:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been deleted and recreated and redirected and... anyway, I found one reliable source, and took out what was unsourced. Perhaps we can get a fresh consensus on whehther this page is worth keeping, now that it's cleaned up. GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Article did not assert notability, there was major BLP problems with the whole article and the giant list which made up 90% of it, and nothing worth saving. Throw in 2007051510005329, and there'sa good case to delete this without delay, which is what I've done. Daniel 09:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lack of notability, just a big mass of stuff, listcruft Chris 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep: Notability established by multiple, independant, reliable sources. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on every person in the world who has gone to court over something. This person is not notable, and there are not claims of notability. My speed tag was removed, so I'm bringing it here Corvus cornix 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily delete as A7. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 11:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find where this is notable, google brings up nothing on this subject. what do you all think? Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. We're planning on having this list, with an Internet link, for every station in the world? Corvus cornix 23:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]