The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism generating only a single Ghit, a FT article which uses the term rather than discussing it. There are no given secondary sources, therefore delete per WP:NEO Jeodesic 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and improve.--Kubigula (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guidelines. The only external source is http://rockethics.psu.edu/climate/ (both links link to this website) and there is a link to the declaration of human rights, but that by itself is WP:SYN and WP:OR. Reads like an essay. No independent coverage. Brusegadi 23:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The present article is drawn, largely verbatim, from publications of the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change organisation. It also describes the organisation. My approach to this article would be to condense this material and add new material from other sources to provide balance. Possibly a separate article on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change group could be started and some of the present material put there.
I think what probably happened here is that the woman from Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change thought they had done some good writing on this subject, which they probably have, and decided to donate it to us. Not so terrible. La la ooh 0:58, 15 November
The result was Keep Closed by non-admin article has already been subject to afd & result was Keep notability was established. This afd is obviously going the same way.RMHED 03:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as a G11 speedy by User:Siddhartha Gautama (now indef blocked) with the following rationale "advertisement of pornography website. References are dubious. Hundreds of references regarding pornography website or porn models can be found on internet. If a report about criminal appear in some newspager, then all criminals find place on wikipedia. No reliable, reputed source. This is attempt to advertise website on wikipedia." and two admins simultaneously came to opposing conclusions. With the deleting admins permission, I've restored the article for an AfD run to get some more input on it. Somewhat of a procedural nomination, so no opinion. henrik•talk 23:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Though Ceyokey's merge doesn't sound like a bad idea. -Splash - tk 16:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web site of questionable notability. Of sources cited, only one is "reliable" - remainder of third-party sources are all blogs. Previously speedy-deleted under A7, and recreated by original author. The history has been restored for your perusal. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This blog broke the news that Comcast was throttling BitTorrent traffic, a story that was later picked up by the Associated Press (major international wire service) after further testing. It is frequently Dugg and is a reasonably reliable, if biased, source on file sharing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.182.80 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there are two non-blog sources in the references.... Richiemcintosh 00:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability for George C. Kennedy, a political "consultant". Reads like a resumeé. Keeper | 76 22:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable blogger. The article is promotional in tone and while sourced, the sources do not seem to me to be independent of the source subject. Mattinbgn\talk 22:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Interstate 76 (west). Treating this and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 76 in Colorado in a joined-up fashion, I'm going to merge them both back. This is because I think the cut of each debate is to do so and the same overall feeling arises when considering the two debates together. Clearly, there is no point in treating the two articles differently as their AfDs do not identify them as needing separate treatments. -Splash - tk 17:11, 18 November 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)) . |
Redundant to Interstate 76 (west), this article is for a 3 mile stretch of highway. SALT ad redirect. Rschen7754 (T C) 22:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Interstate 76 (west). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate 76 in Nebraska for detailed rationale.-Splash - tk 17:11, 18 November 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)) . |
This is redundant to Interstate 76 (west). SALT and redirect. Rschen7754 (T C) 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Though I have to say it is obviously silly to have two so closely similar articles separate from one another, and it strikes me that people are being needlessly difficult about the point. Evidently we're not looking at deletion, though, so discussion elsewhere is needed to work out what properly to do. -Splash - tk 17:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing here to write a biography about. If he were still alive, this could be deleted under WP:BLP1E. I have been trying to redirect this page to the article on the shooting, but it keeps getting reverted. The article basically repeats what's in the stubby school shooting article. Corvus cornix 22:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 04:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that this article meets Wikipedia:Notability requirements. There are no references and no external links. For all I know, it is entirely original research. Furthermore, the article is misleading, implying that the forged @msdn.com and @ms.com e-mail addresses are the actual source of the messages. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This entire article is one huge BLP violation. And none of the sources is reliable. Corvus cornix 22:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Does the info in Michael Jackson and People v. Jackson articles are enough for this stuff? That's a very bad article--JForget 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability. --Angelo 09:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what level of United States soccer the Buffalo & District League operates at, but this article does nothing to establish the club's notability and should therefore be deleted. - PeeJay 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this article violates almost every major Wikipedia policy there is. A Lexis-Nexis search for "Gaijin Smash" produces not a single independent publicly-verifiable source per WP:VER (in fact, there were no articles at all); the sources the WP article does provide either link back to unreliable blog entries, dubious internet sites without a clearly described editing and oversight structure, and/or sometimes the subject site itself calling into question WP:RS and (more importantly) blatant advertising issues; and finally, it contains several unverifiable assertions using weasel words that try to puff-up the importance of the subject matter, suggesting original research. My vote: delete. J Readings 21:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC). No sources. All original research. Themindset 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Daniel 07:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictioal team appeared in less than three pages of one issue of a mini-series; fails test for notability. Article on main subject Kingdom Come (comic book) provides sufficient information on this topic. Konczewski 21:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any secondary sources for this company, and it seems like nobody has edited the page except for someone who probably owns/works for the company (they have done almost no other wiki editing), and the well-meaning editor who tagged the page for notability. It seems fairly well written and reasonably neutral, which is why I listed it here. Nonetheless, Delete. Gump Stump 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Iniquity Collective was a group of four villains from the JLU of the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.18.249 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This group appeared for less than five minutes in one episode of Batman Beyond. Fails the test for notability Konczewski 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) per consensus, the nominator might like to consider adding the appropriate merge tags to the articles concerned. RMHED 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Back and Delete Pointless article to have, merge back into Megadeus. -The Big X 21:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnecessary, redundant list. All of the characters listed here are either already listed at List of Desperate Housewives characters or are very minor characters that do not need listed. Additionally, the list topic seems rather trivial and crufty. I proposed it for deletion a few days ago, but the proposal template was removed by an anonymous editor today. CrazyLegsKC 21:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel 07:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list with no clear importance and no sources. The notability of a specific model of aircraft being captured is not explained. Were they repurposed, or copied, or what exactly? The method is not explained either. Were they on airfields captures by Japanese ground forces? Were they shot down? Were they off course and lost? Without a reason this seems to be a loosely-connected topic and a collection of internal links. Dhartung | Talk 21:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase that is unencyclopedic and unsourced. Poorly written article that could probably never be more than a one sentence stub. IF the information is to be kept, it would be better served on a separate page. —ScouterSig 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was, after reading through all the nonhelpful material to find the opinions of Wikipedians, was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mpodd6 is requesting that this article be deleted, because he claims to be the subject and does not wish to have an article about him. Typically, such requests are not allowed if the subject is notable, but the subject is described as an amateur boxer and the article has no sources to establish notability, so I figured a discussion would be appropriate in this case. This is pretty much just procedural as User:Mpodd6 doesn't have a grasp of deletion policy yet; I'm not submitting an opinion. Leebo T/C 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know what you guys are talking about but i am michael podgorski and i just want this entire article to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.212.170 (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't care what reason you have for deleting it. the whole article is false, i am michael podgorski and i don't want it up anymore. what is with you people, everyone is on a power trip.
ok ok ok, it just seemed like you were really making i point to tell me that you weren't nominating it because i requested it. i don't know all the rules of this site but all i know is the whole article is b.s. i'm not even a boxer i sell tv's at best buy. i can verify i'm mike podgorski just come by best buy on harlem i'll get you a great deal on a new sony plasma tv and i'll show you my id while you buy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the picture the link sends you to is a picture of me but all the stuff written is false, i just want it off of here because all my friends are looking at it and teasing me and it's really embarrasing and i am trying to hook up with this girl MEGAN and if she see's this she won't go out with me and that will CRUSH me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=171046384&oldid=171045349 This kid sells TV's at BEST BUY. I bought one from him last week. After he sold it to me and old lady had her purse stolen. Mike found the guy and knocked him out. He looked like a boxer to me but that can't be because i bought a TV from him 2 minutes earlyer[reply]
you guys are cock blocker Megan loved this guy now she thinks he is a boxer and that is not true
it's not a surprise, it's a surprise that you have a problem with me taking down a page about me that is b.s. to begin with. you want a tv or not?
listen to me you boneheads. i am michael podgorski, yes i edited pete podgorski's page, is that a crime? what i am telling you is that MY page is not true, and i want it down, is this clear or not?
i never "vandalised" anything, i was trying to make peace with the article but people kept messing with it. i just want the thing down, i told you i'd hook you up with a nice tv and your getting mean. do you wanna have a drink later, i'm free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are right, lets just call it a truce. i just need this article down if it's not down it will ruin my life. i need to get some action if you know what i mean, and i have a feeling my boss is checking wikipedia and if he see's that i'm history, come on man be a pal help me out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bro, you and me are the same, we're the SAME. do we not bleed when we get cut, do we not tire when we overwork. you don't owe me nothing, but you owe it to yourself. on your deathbed your gonna be wishing you helped out your fellow man a little more, and i'm a fellow, man. i told you i'd hook you up with a new tv, just give me your email address and i'll email you the best buy catalog for tv's for this christmas. i don't forget a favor, ask anybody about mike from mulberry st. So in the end, was it worth it? Jesus Christ. How irreparably changed my life has become. It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in. I'll grant you I've had more than my share of poignant moments. Life passes most people by while they're making grand plans for it. Throughout my lifetime, I've left pieces of my heart here and there. And now, there's almost not enough to stay alive. But I force a smile, knowing that my ambition far exceeded my talent. There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.120.4 (talk • contribs)
exactly my point...thank you, take me off
everyone in wikipedia is acting like communists, they keep erasing my comments on what is supposed to be an open forum to discuss this topic
i guess that's what happens though, when people test the system they get silenced. nobody wants me to tell my side of the story, they just use their power and erase what i say, real fair.
no, it's not my website, it was created by someone else, that's my point.
i'm not erasing your comments, please don't erase mine. i just want this article down, it's false, yes i've made edits to it, but i didn't know how to erase it. now is the time. what is the big deal, i'm not famous, i'm not your kunta kinta anymore
hey leebo i thought you were done with this. just when i thought you were out they pull you back in.
ok, i have been told to take my time and write a well-written explanation of what's going on here, so i will do so. the external link, the website is about me, but has not been written by me. the facts on that website are untrue, and they are the basis for the article on wikipedia. yes, i have made edits to it, but i didn't know how to delete it. i am not a significant person in the history of boxing, i was only an amateur boxer. nobody can verify anything about me, therefore i feel i should have my article deleted. and i'm not signing my comments because i don't know how to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i am mike podgorski and i erased my page because i do not want it up there anymore. how do i delete the entire entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.212.170 (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
However I had only reverted some vandalism by User:160.79.212.170 to the Rizzo (surname) article on the 18th of December 2006. Therefore this sparked my curiosity into action. On the same users talk page I noted that Admin DerHexer had left a message about vandalism on the Michael Podgorski article, so I took a look at his Talk page where I noted a similar type of entry, at the top of his page, but from Mpodd6:-
i don't know where else to post a message, but i want the page written about me deleted. you keep putting it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]
I note in User:Mpodd6's contributions, on the 23rd of February, this edit to the article:- Addition of USA Flag Icon, which tends to indicate he was inputting information into the article at that time, as opposed to getting it deleted, immediately prior to that he placed a ((sprotected)) tag which was then removed by User:DumbBOT
As it appears User Mpodd6 is also Anon User:160.70.212.170 it should also be noted that not only was the article for deletion request made by him as User:160.70.212.170, but also the creation of the article, along with all these further edits to the article, plus three to the Pete Podgorski article:-
There are also other edits to different articles for example he has added Michael Podgorski to the List of male boxers:-
If the article has actually been created and edited by Michael Podgorski, then there appears to be a conflict of interest here and I recommend he reads the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page.
I also note on this page several unsigned edits by Anon User:65.204.120.4, who seems to do a lot of vandalism entry edits, also has edits to the Michael Podgorski article so I suspect there is a touch of vandalism / hoax / sock puppetry going on here as well. EG:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=171046384&oldid=171045349 This kid sells TV's at BEST BUY. I bought one from him last week. After he sold it to me and old lady had her purse stolen. Mike found the guy and knocked him out. He looked like a boxer to me but that can't be because i bought a TV from him 2 minutes earlyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=next&oldid=171047558 you guys are cock blocker Megan loved this guy now she thinks he is a boxer and that is not true
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=next&oldid=171052436 Mike did you find that RAT, You know what to do when you find that rat don't you? (To which User:Mpodd6 added:-does my lipstick look alright, i said does my lipstick look alright? cause i'm getting f*cked, i wanna make sure my face looks alright)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Podgorski&diff=next&oldid=171055195 So in the end, was it worth it? Jesus Christ. How irreparably changed my life has become. It's always the last day of summer and I've been left out in the cold with no door to get back in. I'll grant you I've had more than my share of poignant moments. Life passes most people by while they're making grand plans for it. Throughout my lifetime, I've left pieces of my heart here and there. And now, there's almost not enough to stay alive. But I force a smile, knowing that my ambition far exceeded my talent. There are no more white horses or pretty ladies at my door.
Perhaps all three users are the same person and a hoax has probably been set up here. However vandalism seems to be the purpose so I recommend that User:160.70.212.170, UserMpodd6, and User:65.204.120.4 be permanently blocked. Richard Harvey 12:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you recommend i be permanently blocked? your an idiot, so basically because you "suspect" that i'm three different users, i should be blocked? that is completely unfair, i am not three different users, i am mpodd6 and there is one other one i posted with which is my ip address, that's it. all you editors for wikipedia act like tyrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't me, that's a fact. anyways i don't know why this has become such a big discussion, it's one meaningless, false article that will not be missed. if you get rid of it i will hook you up with the new "4k" tv by sharp that is coming out in a few months, i get a 50% discount at best buy and i will get you the tv for cost. come on BRO hook me up and i'll hook you up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no, it's not inappropriate, it's the american way. somehow that got lost along the way. people can follow up, i work at the best buy in norridge, illinois. it's in the harlem and irving plaza. come by, ask for mike and i'll hook you up with whatever you need. I remember an America where payoffs were custom, where tipping wasn't a measily 15%, where people like jimmy conway could thrive. I remember an America where politicians could get their buddies jobs and take bribes from truckers to provide them with licenses without fear of restitution. America has become a land of snitches and cowards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpodd6 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. No sources, no merge, as noted by a large number of people below. Daniel 07:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this article, as well as the related Zork articles:
The contents of these are almost entirely in-universe and looking at google searches and any sources on these articles, I could find nothing that satisfies WP:FICT. David Fuchs (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:KieferSkunk (Speedy delete - Hoax page.). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 23:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Other than website and myspace, no ghits. Furthermore, for someone who founded a movement, you would think there would be more on google about you. Finally, "illegal bobcat hunting by means of organic chemical weapons"? Please CSD this as this is a walking blp violation (would have been CSD'ed but asserts some prima facia notability) spryde | talk 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This twice-speedied article (on A7) is back again. It is unsourced and may be a hoax. A search of Billboard's website reveals nothing on an album called "Dog on Coke" or "Queer in the Rain". There is no listing at AMG for either. No hits for "Trevor" & "Dog on Coke". No hits for Trevor & "Queer in the Rain". Suggest deletion and salting, unless some reliable sourcing can be produced to verify. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The comment by Jay32183 was not refuted in any way which had a basis in policy. Daniel 07:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed by anon without comment, which, whatever. This concept has no real-world notability, no reliable sources to establish any such notability and, even within B5 is not all that notable except as a bit of plot exposition for the Psi Corps. Otto4711 20:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus, and the rewrite has further compounded the issue. Daniel 07:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article is a textbook example of a dictionary definition. It's also unreferenced; there's no indication (not even an attempt to claim) that the term is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Powers T 19:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete This should just redir to Gay Slang, which already has a table of definitions. The "it's a definition" argument is not moot: WP:NOT#DICT. The "other definitions exist" argument is moot: WP:OTHERSTUFF. --- tqbf 20:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a perception here that this nomination was performed with malice toward the LBGT community. My attempts at explaining otherwise have been thoroughly and inexplicably rebuffed, but I can only assure everyone with the utmost sincerity that there was no malice intended. I fully support gay rights efforts and abhor the discrimination and prejudice they face daily. This AfD has nothing to do with my feelings on homosexuality. It is purely based on the policy that clearly states that dictionary definitions do not belong on Wikipedia. Powers T 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack by User:72.68.121.10 removed. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tried to list this at AfD, checked over the article myself. Non-notable gang from northern Virginia, no reliable sources. ~Eliz81(C) 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes absolutley no sense. The description is misleading, it says "Here, the edits made to season 1 are listed.", but there in fact is only 1/7 of the episode, only the pilot episode. And it's already explained in Death has a Shadow, if that's not the right place, nothing is. My point is this article serves no purpose. TheBlazikenMaster 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
:Withdraw I will give the article a little more time, it's unfair that this article gets removed after only 2 days. TheBlazikenMaster 19:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to City of London Police. Davewild (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An absolutely non-notable small police station in central London with no particularly significant history or architectural merit. Its only weak claims to notability are an appearance in a videogame and the fact of being the nearest police station to the Old Bailey. There are 188 police stations in London alone (plus many others that are closed), and I can't see any reason to have articles on those other than those with some historic notability. (The one "fact" in this article not to be a piece of video-game trivia is incorrect; the building is on a side-road and the nearby major road (the A40 road) runs east-west and does not meet the river until Oxford, around 70 miles away.) Bringing it to AfD rather than ((prod))ding in order to generate some kind of consensus on the broader issue of whether such buildings are notable. — iridescent 19:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC lone_twin 19:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect, as the argument that this is a point of view fork is well-made and has consensus. In this case, due to the nature of the subject and such, what I have done is protect the Al Gore controversies redirect while leaving the history there. Content can be merged back into Al Gore by editorial consensus and "being bold" edits at involved parties' discretion.
However, it's clear this article shouldn't exist by itself, hence the protected redirect. Parties can determine what, if anything, can be merged and how, through discussion at Talk:Al Gore. Daniel 07:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion, as a fork of only negative tone about a WP:BLP subject. Also, controversy articles are bad in practice, violating WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism. Featured articles such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Wesley Clark, Barack Obama, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, and Theodore Roosevelt do not have associated articles like this. It needs to be pointed out that articles like this turn into dumping grounds for negative material of dubious relevance and none of the material has been "deleted" or will be deleted if this AfD is successful. Any administrator can review and give copies of the data to editors who wish to import relevant, sourced, and on-topic information to Al Gore. As an alternative to outright deletion, I can support redirecting this to the parent article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A trivial unsourced dumping ground for anything related to nanotechnology in fiction. Also, Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 18:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite the extra week (see W.marsh's comment at the bottom), no new sources were found/added, so the delete argument stands as the strongest and with consensus. Daniel 07:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable fan of a certain activity event without independent reliable sources to show its notability. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball-gazing article about what it claims is a forthcoming Nelly Furtado single — I could find no sources stating or suggesting that this is the case. The article contains no references (much less reliable ones), so there's nothing to merge into the album article. Extraordinary Machine 18:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin? This appears to be a neologism based on use in the article vs what google brings up. 2. COI based on the creator and names mentioned in the article. 3. Facebook? 4. Blogspot?!? If this concept is to be included, this article needs to be rebooted from scratch. As for now, it is better left off of WP spryde | talk 18:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge — and redirected. History is preserved for merger. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, South Park is unquestionably notable. That does not make every single aspect of South Park inherently or independently notable. In the absence of reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the opening credits sequences themselves (not passing mentions of them, not descriptions of them in episode guides) they do not pass muster for separate articles. See for example AFDs for the credit sequences for Guiding Light, Another World (opening), Another World (closing) among others. Otto4711 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent coverage seems to be limited to blogs and download sites; not enough to establish notability. Prod from last month removed with the rationale: "Game is significant due to being one of the few notable maintained examples of irrlicht in action. But needs better summary and min. reqs." Marasmusine 18:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of wikipedia, the term "Clinical Transaction Repository" does not exist. This article appears to be original research spryde | talk 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Jenkem. Speedy close because deletion was not requested. —dgiestc 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was split from the main jenkem article with little meaningful discussion. I see no reason why we should have separate articles for jenkem and the moral panic (which Wikipedia, in part, seems to have instigated) surrounding it. Many other drugs (real drugs, mind you) have caused significant moral panics, and we have no articles devoted to them - the societal issues are discussed, almost without exception, in the main article. This has also had the effect of decentralizing discussion on the topic, which is bad, since we really need a few more eyes on this issue. I propose that this article be deleted and its contents be merged back into jenkem. Skinwalker 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
leave it as aits own article, it will grow bigger before it goes away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.134.55 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — 75.191.134.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine, no independent sourcing Mayalld 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin close. Article was already deleted by W.marsh in previous AfD. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maps linked to in article are not of this place. First several pages of non-wiki ghits (in both English and French) do not refer in any way to a kingdom or island with this name. Hoax? Contested prod. Fabrictramp 17:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:Notability (fiction) and is a minor aspect of the series. Much of the article (if not all) is based on the single reference. There's a lot of OR and a lot of plot summary here. Brad 17:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons -- minor fictional aspects of the series:[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for games made up in school one day to play with friends during lunchtime. Deli nk 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— 86.156.109.229 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Redirect to World government in science fiction. There is little information that can be saved for a merge, and I will userify on request if it is needed for that purpose. — Coren (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article was previously deleted through AfD (its second nomination) with the provision that it could be re-created with "focus and sources." This attempt does cite sources, but it is still no more than a very-loosely-related collection of a handful of sources that mention this fictional concept. This concept is still not notable, and merely citing these few sources still does not make it so. Let's please delete this article for good, once and for all. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Clean up I cleaned up this AFD nomination Diff as the original poster overwrote the 2nd Nomination Diff when they should have been posting a 3rd. I am the creator of the current article history. Jeepday (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated as blatant advertising for speedy deletion. I declined, but certainly appears to be a non-notable product and ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Sandstein (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this for deletion again, on essentially the same premise as the first nomination: It is still a "Non-notable argument that does not warrant a place in an encyclopedia."
Although there are about 50 results in Factiva for this incident (I have a PDF of all the results available by e-mail if anyone wants it), it remains a strictly local (Singapore-only) phenomenon, and an unremarkable one at that. It died down after the last court hearing a year ago and no articles - even in the Singapore press - have mentioned it since then. To quote User:Lar from the first nomination, this tiff has had zero influence on public policy and has not changed the lives of any otherwise notable persons. It is nothing like the Hatfield-McCoy feud because it has made little impact on the outside world.
In summary, the Chan family's antics may have generated "widespread" media coverage back 3-4 years ago, but no one remembers them now and WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete. Resurgent insurgent 06:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close with no action (default keep). It is impossible to decipher a coherent result from this debate. No prejudice towards renomination or improvement of article. Kurykh 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This man is a fraud - please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2320347.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2590323.stm
Exactly 5 years after being banned from Directorship, he founded this company, and has conned various people into believing him. This page is part of the con, and should therefore be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DetectiveStan (talk • contribs) — DetectiveStan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 86.156.182.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 217.44.171.159 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
As for "grooming young men" well if he is gay (again staying impartial) that is not a criminal nor civil offence. and I presume by men, we are talking about male's over the age of 16. In which case it is called dating! not grooming! I think that this AFD section should be deleted as it carries statements by the original poster which in their own right are litigious, defamatory and without any confirmed sources whatsoever. This article also breaks Wikipedia's own ethics (to a living person: we should do no harm) Wikipedia is a encylopedia NOT a tabloid. I agree with other posters who feel that the original poster is doing this in bad faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.75.6.54 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC) — 87.75.6.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 09:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:COPY. Someone seems to be going around copying stuff out of English Voice Actor Database without due consideration as to whether a person fulfills WP:BIO. The roles listed here all appear to be minor ones. Stub since April 2006 Ohconfucius 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came upon this article tagged for CSD and spent some time trying to clean it up. Unsourced since August, it does assert notability, though it does not verify its assertions, and it raises several red flags with regards to notability and accuracy. Specific concerns are these:
I believe that unless reliable sources can be produced to verify the notability of the band, the article should be deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G12. GRBerry (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This organization gets about 220,000 ghits ([9]), but given the way the article is written, it would probably be better to start from scratch. Too many COI problems. --Blanchardb 15:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete the 2006 and 2007 lists; keep the other one. Mangojuicetalk 15:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are three articles that simply list TIME's top 100 influential people from 1999, 2006, and 2007. They should be deleted because they are:
CHANGING: Corvus cornix (below) is right -- I can't withdraw the first nomination. But I'm changing my recommendation (as nominator) to delete the last two and keep the first, but delete the copyrighted list within it. Kane5187 19:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I have removed the withdrawal of Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century because, just like all of the other lists, this is a copyvio. And the nominator cannot withdraw a nomination with delete !votes just because they're the nominator. Corvus cornix 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the changes that were made, I withdraw my objections to Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century. Corvus cornix 17:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. No notable items found during customary search spryde | talk 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy A7, no assertion of notability -- lucasbfr talk 15:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Onurdecani (talk · contribs) seems very keen to get this page to Wikipedia; now, after 3rd attempt, it barely passes CSD A7. After some investigation of mine, there is a Dj. Onur, http://www.djonur.biz/, but his name is Onur Ergin, and has a decent number of GHits. However, that one, borderline notable, seems to be a German Turk and not the same person as Onur Decani, who has grand total of 0 GHits. Looks like a case of WP:NFT. Unless I missed something, this one looks like a candidate for salting. Duja► 15:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it should be improved or deleted. List of (U.S.) Billboard country chart chart achievements provides precedent. Brought here for more discussion. Esprit15d( • ۞ • ▲) 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 21:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. The one source given explicitly describes it as made up for a simulated exercise on a training course. Even if rewritten to be a factual article, it's not notable enough. ~Matticus TC 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a term invented by Andrew Grathwohl (see [[17]]). Of the 40 unique Google hits for this term, most are either from Grathwohl's own site, spamming said site in forums, from Wikipedia and mirrors, or are unrelated. This is fundamentally unverifiable and orignal research, there are no reliable analytical sources in respect of this concept, that I can find. Not in Grove, not in Google Scholar, not on Factiva, I don't have Lexis-Nexis but if you do please see if it's on there. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 18:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictitious topic presented as fact. The phenomenon described never existed outside of fiction; regulatory heraldic bodies are a post-medieval development; possession of heraldic devices stemmed from inheritance or from individual assumption of arms, and had nothing to do with presence or absence of a "liege". The text is unsourced -- perhaps cribbed from an RPG handbook? RandomCritic 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hairstyle to preserve the GFDL in light of the merge.--Kubigula (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has had multiple prods, fails WP:NOT#DICT, it difficult to imagine how this long time unreferenced stub will ever become an encyclopedic article. Nominator suggesting transwiki to Wiktionary and delete Jeepday (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod.
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the article asserts notability by claiming great popularity and a television deal. However, there are no reliable sources to verify any notability. The television deal alone would not, in my judgment, be sufficient to keep. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll 13:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overtime I will update this page as much as possible with information about the team that is needed to be there, theres alot I have still not put on the wiki due to time really, as you are all saying, it is and I myself think it should be up for Speedy Delete or just Delete, Ive seen so many wiki pages here that literally walk all over ours but rest assured I can only contribute to the wiki pages, wether or not you decide to delete the page is of course up to the members, admin etc here.
Take care everybody Danni W - Jackass UK Wikipedia Page Writer/Coder etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackassUK (talk • contribs) 01:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The term is a neologism in limited use in some circles, but Wikipedia is not a directory for new coinages. A number of sources have been added to the article during the discussion, but none of of the accessible ones do more than mention the term in passing (thus, at most, attesting use of the term), and some do go on at some length about the New-York-London pairing, but do not even mention the term at all. No prejudice against creating a redirect to Nylon (magazine), which might be reasonable given the concepts align.
Despite the great deal of incivil and single purpose account comments in the discussion, no argument rooted in policy or guideline has been put forth to suggest why the article should be kept. — Coren (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a neologism for "New York and London", used in one Financial Times article. NawlinWiki 13:51, 12 November 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)) . |
You are not really right Nawlin... See also [18]. I didn't make up this term. There is such a thing as a "NyLon commuter" to give you just one example. BTW I live in London so I know this term is widespread. Don't rush and delete this article just because. Can't you see it is used in the prestigious FT ? If they gave it a greenlight why erase it? The term already exists, we cannot do anything about it! BTW And there are plenty more refferences in the media ready to be added . Apostolos Margaritis 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've got NO RIGHT to decide arbitrarily what to delete or not just because it happens that you dislike an article. And it is not used ONLY in ONE FT article. Why are so biased not to say plainly incorrect as to this issue of the so called "one" refference? There're more than that. There is The Observer too. One, two..three...Learn how to count. It's arithmetics. Let me be clear: I'm gonna mobilise wiki users who are gonna defend the right of this article to exist.Apostolos Margaritis 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[19] London wiederum ist eng verbunden mit New York, sodaß manche schon von NyLon (New York-London) sprechen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apostolos Margaritis (talk • contribs) 15:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are reputable, respectable sources making the case for NyLon but you've got no eyes for them and seem to refuse the evidence . "World capital? Nylon, of course " in "The Observer" Sunday, March 25, 2007 So we'got the Financial Times, we've got The Observer what else on earth do you want more than that? Apostolos Margaritis 19:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Oops, there we go. We'got now The Independent's Gilbert Gerard endorsing the term too.[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin) as per 3 previous afd's, this afd is heading the same way. RMHED 19:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Asian fetish has been nominated for deletion twice three times before. Although it is uncommon that an article be nominated for the third fourth time, I nominate the article for deletion again for different reasons.
The article has gone through a lot of overhaul since the nominations for deletion and not in a good way. The article has had multiple problems, one of them being original research and lack of reliable sources. There are only few sources, and everything deemed to be OR has been deleted and the article is still a mess. The templates and the external links seem to be about twice the size of the actual article. I propose that this article be either deleted or be merged into Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians. mirageinred 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 03:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC) mirageinred 03:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may be notable but it's entirely self-sourced and all edits appear to be from animal rights activists, so the neutrality is also questionable. Google is no help due to the somewhat generic title and a similarly titled film starring Harvey Keitel. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't encyclopedic. It doesn't have much momentum going for it. E_dog95' Hi ' 07:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Participants are invited to discuss inclusion criteria on the article's talk page. Hut 8.5 10:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Hey, listen, the research on that page is excellent, and I know a butt load of work went into this, however, WP:NOT#DIR makes this page non-allowable. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THROW OUT COMMENTS BY TimShuba - because he's clueless !!!!!!!! KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Per WP:NOT#DIR, also not referenced at all. KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 03:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed this article for deletion since it is duplicate of other better, written articles that have been created ever since. These include MTA Maryland bus routes, History of MTA Maryland, and several articles called "Route x (Baltimore)." This article's title is very long, and the others have shorter ones. Sebwite 15:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article is not properly sourced and seems to truly be a form of neologism. JodyB talk 13:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a combination of advertisement, neologism and nonsense. Busy Stubber 01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Today a user added a new comment to the article's talk page, so please consider that comment. Maybe he doesn't know how to put the comment here. I don't understand what he's talking about, but maybe you do. Thank you. --Busy Stubber 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 14:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Canadian hip hop duo. Blackjays1 19:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34 unique Googles including WP and mirrors, no evidence of significant independent coverage, no mainstream sources at all, only "family friendly" (i.e. conservative Christian) sources. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Combs (Catholic priest)
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
seems non-notable per WP:BAND. no sources, googling dsm + "in the midst of chaos" pulls up a couple of self-references and some false positives. anon removed prod. tomasz. 12:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete via WP:CSD#G7. If anyone wants the content, just drop me a line on my talk. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed on the grounds of similar articles existing. PROD would probably be contested. This article lacks reliable independent sources that would verify the notability of this product, and it is written in a tone which is promotional, not encyclopedic.
Also nominating:
Delete all except cPanel, which was included for the sake of fairness.
Blanchardb 12:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per consensus and newly-added nontrivial reliable sources. As for merging into a single article for both of them, that can be handled (if desired; consensus was less clear) outside the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Sinclair and Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon) were British vets, and brothers. They happened to work with Alf Wight (who wrote as James Herriot). Their sole claim to fame was having characters from Herriot's novels loosely based on them. A PROD tag was removed from Brian Sinclair by an IP as the article had "interesting background information" (I don't see it myself). I submit these articles fail to meet our requirements for notability per WP:BIO, failing to show any real notability. Neil ☎ 11:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also included: Donald Sinclair (veterinary surgeon).
The result was Delete as spam. --JForget 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally nominated for speedy deletion under G11, blatant advertising. Appears to be non-notable product, if anyone can figure out exactly what they're talking about... SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable and verifiable music article. The 130 unique ghits failed to yield any reliable info. MER-C 08:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. OR, OR, OR. -- Mike (Kicking222) 15:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A contested prod. Concerns are about the POV and the OR nature. I agree with the prod-people here. UsaSatsui 08:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Probably hoax: there's no evidence that Gustavo Oduber held senior political positions on Aruba - but the present Prime Minister has the same surname; no ghits whatever for any of the alleged events in Gustavo Oduber's life; unreferenced. andy 07:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G12 as copy of [23]. GlassCobra 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable meta-spam that looks good in pink (there are some non-spam versions in the history, however). 20 unique ghits and zero news ghits under a brand. MER-C 07:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a list of media companies. No other substantial content included and a mere violation to WP:NOT#DIR. If possible, transfer it to WikiDirectory (Is there any so we could save the content anyway)? --βritand&βeyonce (talk•contribs) 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC))) BritandBeyonce 07:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{subst:ab))
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stub about non-notable characters that do not merit their own article. This is in addition to the fact that the fact lacks proper sources for its assertions regarding which characters were combined (the issue mentioned does not explicitly say so); the fact that it involves OR, subjective interpretation about the alleged merging of these characters; the fact that it fails to point out that this is about fiction; and several other problems. Doczilla 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; no oppositions raised, and the subject requests its deletion. krimpet⟲ 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline notability, subject requests deletion. ^demon[omg plz] 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 06:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable group. First, it is entirely original research; no secondary coverage is available via google search. Second, it fails WP:ORG: it has never run candidates for election, registered as a political party or, as far as I can tell, done anything other than put up a website. I quote from the article: "Following the initial posting of information on the website, there does not appear to have been any organizational activity." Galteglise 05:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never has there been a more obvious violation of WP:NFT, which the article admits in its first sentence. Contested prod, procedural nomination. Caknuck 05:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Defaults to keep. W.marsh 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm having trouble categorizing him. Is he notable because he's a linguist who happened to work on a hit movie, or is he notable because he worked in the film industry as a language consultant? The one extant independent, reliable source (the Detroit News article now redlinks) suggests the latter but doesn't demonstrate the extent of notability required by WP:BIO for creative professionals. On top of that, only 10% of the content of the article is supported by the source; the remainder is some combination of unverified and possibly original research.
In September, discussion was started in the talk page about the dearth of sources, and none have come forward. The article was prodded today, and I agree with the message used there (other than that I'd say "nearly devoid"): "This article has remained devoid of reliable sources for nearly a year. The fact that even supposed "scholarly reviews" of the subject's work lead to Yahoo!Groups posts implies he does not satisfy notability guidelines." Fails WP:BIO criteria for creative professionals, fails verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Salo is unfortunately only noteworthy for his verbal abuse of animals, hatred of figs, and his obsessive and unaccountable love for the movie "Dark Crystal." None of these seem particularly worthy of note. Sword n sorcery 01:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) struck as irrelevant DGG (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography created by the student in question. May touch on notability, but I can't find any specific guidelines on actors or actresses; nor on voice actresses specifically. A Google search gives 0 hits. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 04:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little known school. Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. The only linked source is a directory listing which indicates it is a kindergarten and junior school with 20 enrolled pupils. The footnote reference appears to be but a trivial mention Ohconfucius 04:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites no coverage of the concept of the "Trinity collision" in any third-party reliable sources, and is believed to constitute original research. John254 04:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Clear cut advert/non-notable org. -Splash - tk 20:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability. Seems like an ad. Article is orphaned. Torc2 04:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G1. This was mostly procedural, but I agree that it's pretty obvious nonsense. GlassCobra 04:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty obvious hoax. Creator seems to be a borderline vandal. GlassCobra 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Possibility remains for recreation in a better form. CitiCat ♫ 05:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This article pushes at the boundary of what makes a topic encyclopedic. Long and sprawling lists of statistics are by consensus not acceptable. Wikipedia is not a guidebook or a repository of sports statistics. The article does not establish notaibility of this sub-topic and is poorly referenced (the given reference is dated earlier than many of the entries). ✤ JonHarder talk 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion to notability. Comprised mainly of external links to University of Hong Kong pages. In what little content is notable, is already available in the University of Hong Kong article. Luke! 03:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, g1 nonsense, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki 14:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:SOAP, and WP:COI (written by the founder). It's also unreferenced, and not notable. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Speedy possible? Rocket000 03:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable model who only generates 8 unique Google hits.He was mentioned in this South African paper [28], but that was well over a year ago and he obviously never became famous. Seems these days he's really a personal shopper [29] RMHED 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails crystal ball test, host will not be announced until next year Samuell 02:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 05:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability unproven, doesn't really say anything or add to the encyclopedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<d> Delete Merge and Redirect to The Order or to David Lane. I agree with Squeak. Sadly, the Anti-Defamation League seems to have helped immortalize David Lane by making an article on its site about a 14-word sentence that Lane imaginatively called "The Fourteen Words". If Hitler were alive today, he'd be saying (in Mock German) "Vat a dumbkopf!" Mandsford 02:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable term with very limited use. Googling for "neodems" or "newodemocrats" "neodemocrats" as well as the phrase "Australian Democrats" gives only one page - this WP page. Also short enough to be incorporated into Australian Democrats. Peter Ballard 01:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a crater on Phobos that is officially unnamed and probably not notable, the user who created the page has apparently just decided to give it a name and create an article. Snigbrook 00:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a non-encyclopedic personal essay. The article contains cites, but they do not verify the text. -- See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought (specifically Template:Essay-entry and Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day), WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Template:Citecheck, and possibly Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position. -- Writtenonsand 00:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of mostly redlinks and/or nonlinks linked from only one substantive site. Little work has been done on this article in nearly 14 months and it's difficult to see how it's notable within the EN Wikipedia. If anything, notable Envoys, etc can be linked from the parent articles but the usefulness of this list is not immediately apparent. Its creator has not edited in the last 11 months. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article could use a proper introduction, some formatting and (better) references, but these are not ground for deletion for this particular article. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb 18:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is assertion of notability, but frankly, the article as it is written right now is unsalvageably incoherent. Delete and start over. Blanchardb 00:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails to meet notability guidelines. Page reads like advertisement and was created by a user whose only contributions have been to this page. Chadamir 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. The page was a copyright violation lifted from Schweitzer's website, specifically [30]. In addition, deletion of this article seems to be the consensus here. I believe this person may very well be notable; anyone should feel free to create a new article if they write original text and base it on reliable sources. Mangojuicetalk 15:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an autobiography/resume of Jeff Schweitzer (talk · contribs). He has made no edits outside this article. The other major contributor is Digitalr (talk · contribs), an unidentified user who also hasn't made any edits outside this article. This article was originally nominated for speedy deletion per A7, but the nom was (rightfully) declined, because there were at least some assertions of notability. However, when looking into the assertions more closely, not much remains. He is a scientist, but he doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He was a civil servant, but not a very notable one. I think the highest he achieved was the position of "Assistant Director for International Affairs in the Office of Science and Technology Policy", basically the second in line at a department of an advisory body. His aviation-related publications were either in his own magazine or in non-notable magazines. The scientific publications do carry some weight, but it doesn't appear to be sufficient weight to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AecisBrievenbus 00:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Digitalr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no sources (neither primary nor secondary); Non-notable. Renee 00:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blanchardb. Samuell 02:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 03:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All this is already explained within The Amory Wars. This contains personal views and is written like a review. -- Jack 00:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. --Coredesat 04:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODded this earlier, but the PROD was contested. I am not exactly convinced this character is notable. Despite the fact that it was on a long-running television program, the program was a local one and not notable on a large scale. Coredesat 00:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is probably a hoax VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious neologism, wikipedia is not a dictionary or publisher of original thought, no reliable sources (the Merriam-Webster is a public-editable website, thus failing WP:RS) and 24 google hits, first one is wikipedia. The remainder are wikipedia sub-pages, web fora, and other inapplicable sources. No evidence from google that this term has any real usage. WLU 14:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The majority of consensus lies with the deletion of this article, primarily because of the lack of established Notability. Whilst the addition of citations is commendable, unfortunately the fact that they are in Chinese means that cannot be confirmed as Reliable Sources. Anthøny 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Not verifiable, lacking reliable sources. Chinese version translated by Altavista on talk page does not add anything notable, nor any sources. No googles on Tang Yuhan doctor that do not refer to Wikipedia on him or to Catholic University of Leuven, where he is supposed to have graduated before 1930, making him at least 99 years of age. Paul Pieniezny 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]