The result was Merge into Marilyn Manson (person). I'll do a rough attempt which interested editors are invited to refine. (Non-administrator closing). --Tikiwont 09:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Rocket000 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. Alksub 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Rocket000 23:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Distribution (business). Carlossuarez46 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted via PROD as unreferenced spam, recreated by an SPA. Although the term "Authorized distribution" may be an actual term, this article focuses solely on the activities of one company in one market sector. This obviously is nothing more than spam. /Blaxthos 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not listed on Shenandoah's website as an actual campus group, no coverage in greek org websites, and no actual content. Mbisanz 23:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources to show notability per WP:CORP. Alksub 23:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears only on referenced artists website. Lacks notability in art community, and no real coverage on google Mbisanz 23:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This player fails WP:BIO as he has never played a senior match for a fully professional side. The article is made up mostly of weasel words and NPOV statements, as well as a couple of uncited quotes. WP:BIO is quite clear on these matters, and the article should be deleted straight away. PeeJay 23:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search [1] produces myspace, wikipedia and a BBC Wales "upload your band's details" showcase website for new talent along with other blogging type sites. No significant news or third party reliable coverage to justify a WP article. B1atv 23:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 23:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article had a PROD placed on it, which was removed the next day by an IP with no improvement to the article. I'm vaguely familiar with this comic, so I tried to improve it, but can't find the sources to do so. Additionally, the article makes several unsubstantiated and controversial claims, such as Rush co-founding National Lampoon (he didn't, so far as I can tell) and being a drug addict and alcoholic (perhaps true, but unsourced and libelous). I don't believe he passes WP:BIO. faithless (speak) 23:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
spam page created by company "founder" and "president" which, despite attempts at cleaning up, still reads like a spam page of a non-notable company. B1atv 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm sure this infomercial product gets tons of Google hits, it does not as yet have any significant coverage in reliable, published sources. Notice that the ref to the Federal Trade Commission now present does not specifically deal with the sauna belt, but rather with a general principle of the trade commission's treatment of products. Without the ability to verify facts about this subject a credible article is impossible, and thus, one should not exist. A cursory news search provides no recent hits, while an archives search pulls up plenty of adverts from the 70's. VanTucky Talk 22:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable game, that severely lacks verifiability / reliable sources. The two other games by the same design studio (Jumper and Hold Off Red), have both been AfD'd and deleted for similar reasons, so I think there's a pattern indicating some consensus here. (Also, as a preemptive warning, previous AfD's were spa-magnets). Bfigura (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-dreamcat (talk • contribs) 00:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC) — Wiki-dreamcat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy delete. —[[Animum | talk]]
Non-notable retail complex, tagged for notability since July with no improvement. No notability even claimed. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A biographical article about a businessman who is (rather peripherally it seems) associated with football. Although the article appeared to be of someone who appeared to be notable, further examination of the claims in the article make a pretty strong case that he's not notable and little if any of the info we have about him can be verified. So I think we should delete this article.
The notability claims in the article are very weak: he's a businessman (but there's no indication that the business is anything special), he was involved with a non-league football team (but not, it seems, to a huge degree). He tried to buy a small professional team, but didn't succeed. The claims (present in the article as initially submitted) that he played for two notable English football teams appear either to be false or gross exaggerations (cf Talk:Millwall F.C.#Peter Theo Vasiliou and Talk:Peter Theo Vasiliou) and in turn the weakness of these few verifiable claims weakens the sources (which, in that light, seems more like a press releases than a reliable sources) for much of the article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete with redirect to Tsuki. Alabamaboy 00:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which is about a specific punching technique in karate/Japanese martial arts, consists of about 95% "howto" material, contains no references, and is possibly non-notable, or at least not notable enough to deserve its own article. It is also listed at List of shotokan techniques, and List of kyokushin techniques (there as "seiken oi tsuki"). I tagged the article with ((howto)), which lasted all of 40 minutes before it was taken down, with the rationale that the article cannot be made less "howto", so it seems appropriate to "test" the article with an afd nomination. I believe notability is the primary concern; if notable, a two to five sentence stub (with a reference) would be an appropriate non-howto treatment of the subject. If kept, I also propose a move to Oi-zuki (same title but with a hyphen) to better indicate the compound nature of the word, rather than its current appearance as two words. Bradford44 13:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, and other serious problems. I had a field day with Twinkle removing 11 images without license tags, for example Maxim(talk) 21:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC) KEEP KEEP KEEP! This is a fun game, that I like to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessKirlia (talk • contribs) 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs rescue, not delete. Mentionned in the NY Times -- Kl4m T C 16:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube and myspace star, but otherwise doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 21:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice against a sourced, NPOV rewrite by somebody independent of the article subject. GRBerry 03:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject does not seem to be particularly notable under WP:BIO, the article lacks citations, and it may have been written by the subject. If it can be improved, with notability shown, I would not be averse to inclusion. (note: I originally added a db-bio tag, which seemed appropriate, however, a google search showed that the subject was potentially notable, so I have changed it to this afd nom.) Grand Slam 7 | Talk 21:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable podcast, no independent sources. Claims to be in iTunes "top 20", but no citations. NawlinWiki 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was crush with hammer. DS 04:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom; I've just removed a ((db-nonsense)) from this as whatever it is, it's not unsalvageably incoherent & speedy's inappropriate for possible hoaxes. As there's probably no subject on which I know less than Uruguayan fishing boats, sending it here in the hope that someone who does know can determine whether this is a hoax or not. Procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think its real... a duck shaped boat called a Ma - l - ardaquitus... :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.101.60 (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No martini was involved... just the rusty workings of my strange mind... it is indeed a hoax... if a very well thought out and written one, even if I do say so myself! It was intended for a friend of mine but sods law has struck and his mac has decided to pack up... dont suppose we could just leave it on here? (that was a joke). Apologies to anyone who feels there time has been wasted, and to wikipedia for breaking the rules. It was just meant as a bit of harmless fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.101.60 (talk • contribs)
The anon user is me, sutok... please feel free to ban me if thats my punishment... :)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable contestant on reality show. The page was obviously made by an agency she is with trying to boost her career. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth :) 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable new (from 2007) amatuer football club. Contested prod, because they play in the third division of the North American soccer league. No indication that they meet WP:NOTE in any way, though, simply playing in a certain (non-professional) league isn't enough. Fram 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 00:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person is known for only one incident. WP:BLP1E suggests that an article on the incident may be appropriate, but not a biography on the person. Wikipedia is not a news blotter. Dean Wormer 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not explain why one bus service is any more notable than anything else. Quentin Smith 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Kelly, Fond user of the 268 23/09/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.246.42 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
@ above, it MUST be better than the 269, because that service route got taken off when thr 269 and the 269 were running virtually the same route, that a good enough reason? //Benja —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.83.183 (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this discussion should be closed now.
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is marginally asserted, but IMHO this still does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements. TexasAndroid 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When one considers the tortured syntax necessary to establish how this trek site is different form all the others, one s prompted to wonder: do we actually care that Christian Höhne Sparborth founded this after leaving another network in a huff? Do we need the long list of links to member profiles? Do we, in fact, need a directory entry for this trekkers' fan site at all? I don't think we do. I don't think it's been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, nonnotable amateur club. NawlinWiki 03:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfD-ing rather than prodding as there could be a reason to keep this as a bona fide college sports team (which seem more notable in the US than the rest of the world). However, I don't see how this is salvageable; strip out the OR, vanispam & attempts at humour, and all that would be left would be a two-line stub. As I can't see a way it could be cleaned up, I'm breaking my own rule and bringing it to AfD early rather than tagging for cleanup. — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was (Somewhat delayed) Speedy delete a7, no assertion that this product is notable; no independent sources. NawlinWiki 04:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a cryptology device but a toy. It is also not an encryption device as anybody with one of these toys can deciphger anything created with them. A google search reveals only sales and marketing or blogs and no independent or verifable sources to assert notability. Further, this article has been created and maintained by steveostler - the official copycoder.com site states that copycoder was invented by Steve Ostler. B1atv 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Has already had two months. Can be recreated if reliable sources emerge. Eluchil404 23:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Marked as unsourced in July, still unsourced. A free MMORG, of which there is no shortage. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This would a fairly sensible passage from a book on Planning Statistical Research, although it does not appear to be verbatim. But Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Transwiki to Wikibooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G11). Article states that hydroxagen is not a substance, but rather the trade name for a plant extract used in dietary supplements, notably Hydroxycut. The scientific content is zero, it is pure spam. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about some chemical compound that was tagged speedy delete as spam, doesn't smell as spammy as all that but it also doesn't seem notable either without any sourcing Carlossuarez46 18:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that this person is notable. The sunder king 18:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under criterion A7. Article does not assert notability. Physchim62 (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a quick sanity check and a snowball close here. This is an unfinished novel by an unpublished, unknown author. The wikilink Bobby Graham in the article takes you to a very famous English, not Scottish, session musician, and there is also a retired Scottish footballer, Bobby Graham (footballer). Neither of these famous, and by now rather elderly, Bobby Grahams is a "young Scottish author". The book, we're told, will be "hopefully published upon completion", but no publisher is mentioned.
I tried adding a proposed deletion tag to this article over a week ago, in fact the day after the article was first created, but the original editor removed the tag, which is the only reason the article still exists. Tony Sidaway 18:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, as non-notable (WP:CSD A7), by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein 06:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn book, fails WP:BK, possible WP:COI as it is among a number of articles by same editor for books and authors published by Fig Tree. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Mass Media. Maxim(talk) 21:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced buzzword romp, makes little sense, cannot see that it rises to the level of an encyclopedia entry. Has been tagged for sources and expansion since Feb 2007. The last sentence is atrocious. SolidPlaid 09:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources given and article is poorly written. Yossiea (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AJOP. gidonb 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete Yossiea (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Conditional Keep important issue, but must be sourced.--Truest blue 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor voice actress. No sign of significant third-party coverage. No material seems available to grow the article past the current sub-stub. Pascal.Tesson 17:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 03:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, no concrete assertion of notability, and quite confusing. There's not really much to say about it, but I do not feel like this is a suitable article. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR, personal observation, and a rather arbitrary choice of encyclopedia topics. No speedy criterion fits, and the author placed a ((hangon)) tag so PROD was unlikely to work. Mangojuicetalk 17:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Procedurally closed. A spelling or naming-conventions dispute about the title of an article is not a basis for deletion. This closure is without prejudice to an AfD based on more appropriate grounds, although I note that the article has already been AfD'd once before with a Keep result. Newyorkbrad 18:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The notability of this street in Berlin has always been marginal; it consists largely of the fact that Hitler's Chancellery used to stand there. However, the chief function of the article in Wikipedia has been, for some time, the ongoing spelling dispute: is it Vossstrasse, Voßstraße, or Voss Strasse? I propose to cut the Gordian knot.
This dispute seem to me beyond reason, and against practice; WP:MOS says, The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage (e.g., Besançon, Edvard Beneš and Göttingen, but Nuremburg, naive (not naïf), and Florence). But, above all, it is interminable.
Is this article worth the perpetual conflict? Anything which needs to be salvaged can be added to the article on the Chancellery, if it hasn't been moved to Kanzlerei. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE per discussion below. A REDIRECT in place of the article seems like a good idea. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-published author written by a WP:COI account, no evidence of notability and if this author is notable, why don't we know the date, year, and place of birth - red flags of non-notability. Carlossuarez46 16:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 21:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about an album which is not due to be released until 2009 by an artist who appears to be not notable. A google search produced no results for the album title and no sites for the artist other than Youtube and WP.
Ordinarily I'd nominate as a CSD but the article is written as if it is notable and so AFD is probably the best route. B1atv 16:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about an album which is not yet released by an artist who appears to be not notable. A google search only produced WP as a source. Ordinarily I'd nominate as a CSD but the article is written as if it is notable and so AFD is probably the best route. B1atv 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. Natalie 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE — madman bum and angel 15:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio. Natalie 16:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE — madman bum and angel 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE per discussion below. Our policy that articles must be verifiable in independent, reliable sources has a strong consensus, and no argument for keeping attempts to demonstrate such verifiability. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. My original reason for prodding was: "Non-notable DJ with one independently released EP and a music video "rumoured to be released" in late 2007. 19 Google hits, all for Wikipedia or MySpace. There isn't even a real name in the article, which reads like a hoax, even if it isn't, and it's totally unsourced." The creator has added "real name undisclosed" and 2 references and feels that this satisfies the prod concerns. However, the artist doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and the references are to his MySpace site and to his freewebs-hosted blog, which now includes the news item: "WIKIPEDIA IS TRYING TO SHUT DJ BLATES ARTICLE DOWN!!...I GOTTA GET ALL YOU HOT FUCKING SKETS SUPPORTIG THIZ SHIZ!!!" One EP and a record deal with a company that has 1 non-Wiki, non-Myspace, non-own site result does not a notable musician make. Kateshortforbob 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP!!! Me and at leat 20 other people i know love DJ BLATES he is the next DJ Luck Man!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirstylancaster17 (talk • contribs) — Kirstylancaster17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Speedy Deletion. Limited notability. Further discussion required please. Pedro | Chat 14:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Articles must demonstrate notability through coverage in third party sources. Also see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Eluchil404 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been struggling to find good independent references for this game, and I'm concerned that most of the exsiting references are from a forum. My searches have found some download sites and press releases on sites like Planet Quake and Mod DB, but nothing that would satisfy WP:N. Marasmusine 13:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with no sourced content merge is not viable. GRBerry 01:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional topic consists entirely of in-universe information. There is no independent reliable sources to provide evidence of WP:Notability to justify keeping this plot summary.--Gavin Collins 13:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was RESULT:Deleted already by Raymond arritt per A7. non-admin closure. SYSS Mouse 15:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article claims that this band had a number 1 chart hit in Australia, yet there is nothing relevant on Google. Their site is on a free host and has nothing more than 'coming soon'. This is a pretty blatant hoax from what I can see Darksun 12:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is plot summary from the books. There is no assertion of real-world notability, and the lack of reliable third-party sources makes it impossible for the article to pass WP:WAF. EEMeltonIV 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This term derived from the role playing game Exalted is non-notable, as the article has no independent sources to verify usage or context outside of its in universe descriptions. --Gavin Collins 12:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn (see [18]). Mr.Z-man 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO. Flagged Notability in Feb 2007. Reads like a PR piece. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 11:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Queried speedy delete. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21#Volcano Vaporizer. Anthony Appleyard 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, good to see that my request to restore the page again led to some discussion. I aggree that advertising no matter is unwanted. On the other hand it is the device ALL medical research is done with. I know at least 4 independent medical studies by universities (praising the device). Furthermore we are discussion here a form of application of that can be suitable for a whole lot more than just cannabis cause the effect of any substance via the lung is fast. In relation with (Listen up!) independent scientific studies I am sure the provided content is more than just PR - even if only talking about one specific device. (By the way, who is complaining about the iphone site, if taklking over commercial content?) I am pro restoring or rebuilding a new site for that simple product!
The result was delete and redirect. Daniel 05:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the potential for an encyclopedic article here. The prod was contested with the explanation that the phrase was redlinked from Criticism of Wikipedia - but pretty much anything can be redlinked, so this is not sufficient. GregorB 11:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, edited to remove copyright violation. NawlinWiki 03:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the rationale for its deletion? Anyways, I vote for a "weak keep" since the topic gets over 10,000 google hits and since the Gulf War Syndrome controversy is still notable and ongoing. Revolutionaryluddite 05:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was bold redirect. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article repetedly tagged for speedy deletion Camptown 23:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a paraphrase of their 'company profile' page. Looking at the original version of the article, posted by Avneet, a user who is now gone, it is clear that the intent was to post an ad -- the article contained full contact info for ordering, etc.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
article is one gigantic list with many redlinks. This is what categories are for. Perakhantu 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability, just started today. NawlinWiki 21:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement. Inherently unverifiable through independent sources, as the station only starts braoadcasting today. The very model of a minor general 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
entirely unnotable. EP not yet realeased, and the claim that Priest stay away from the kids has already leaked across the internet is not confirmed by google. The very model of a minor general 10:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. StaticElectric 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fascism, in this case deletion is a bad thing. If this network agrees with the principles of freedom of speech and democracy this article should stay. Just as in parliament, the people decide about the laws by voting. Let this article be as it represents if not a majority, a minority of people who have rights too, and can surely use them with disadvantageous consequences. Max —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.154.234.139 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you are unfamiliar with how WP works, it does not follow that we are Fascists. StaticElectric 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Move to User:Montchav/2007 Rugby World Cup try scorers in lieu of deletion. —--Montchav 10:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need for such a specific article. An overview of the information is given at 2007 Rugby World Cup. PeeJay 09:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change If I understand correctly the original intention of the author, this should not be an article, but a list SyG 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. No non-trivial, third party reliable sources can be found which establishes notability for this small general aviation operator. Russavia 09:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. No non-trivial, third party reliable sources can be found which establishes notability for this small general aviation operator (flight school mainly). Russavia 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5 banned user and also WP:CSD#A7 notability no asserted. Pedro | Chat 11:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fraudulent page. This million seller artist seems to have been heard of only on Myspace and Wikipedia Kww 09:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The keep arguments are not tremendously pursuasive, but there is certainly no consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Plot summary of a book that appears to fail WP:BK; the article does not refer to any secondary sources. The "Keep" arguments in the last AfD (one year ago, closed as "no consensus") cannot stand by today's version of WP:BK. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 01:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing as ska (or more precise, third wave ska). Does not deserve its own article. Punkmorten 08:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and verifiability issues. The three weblinks uses as references do not prove notability: once a member of council of a town with 478 people, a scanned img of one newspaper article from an unknown newspaper, and a link to his coat of arms. The one ref that is supposed to prove notability is to a book or paper "X-ray Studies of Defects in Diamond and Gallium Arsenide", but if you google it all that turns up are wikis about this guy. Unknown if this reference is even real, certainly not verifiable. The article says he has something to do with the Clackson scroll formula, and then in that article the reference is unverifiable, and doesn't show up on google at all either. Search for "Clackson scroll formula" on google and you only come up with various wiki pages. Google the guy's name and you only get wiki pages, and a couple posting from a message board. No proof of Notability and Unverifiable. Celtus 07:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial unsourced list of mentions. Yet another "let's clean the article by moving this section to a new article". CONDENSE instead of just moving elsewhere. RobJ1981 06:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. I wasn't aware of the tunnel fire before nominating this article for deletion (it wasn't mentioned in the article at the time), so I now feel this street is notable for inclusion. --—Scott5114↗ 20:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC) (non-admin close)[reply]
Non-notable street in Baltimore. Not part of a numbered highway. —Scott5114↗ 05:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. To be done by the editors of the destination article. GRBerry 01:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Clan Duncan. There is a Clan Donnachaidh (Duncan is an Anglicisation of Donnachaidh). The surname Duncan is considered a sept of Clan Donnachaidh, and there is one website trying to create an independent Clan Duncan, but that's it. So there is no Clan Duncan, though there is a Clan Donnachaidh.Celtus 05:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Seems to be a local group, with no mainstream coverage. No verifiable links and google turns up only 39 pages for the title plus the founding location of Pizza Hut. Mbisanz 05:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable city street. Not a numbered highway. —Scott5114↗ 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Merge requires sourced content. No content is actually sourced here. GRBerry 03:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alien spacefaring race in the TV show Farscape, the Scarran--who have their own page--have large warships called Scarran Dreadnaughts. This is hardly surprising, and since we know what a dreadnaught is, how does this page enlighten us? Non-notable even within-universe. I will take a break from nominating Farscape pages to see how the debate shapes itself. Fans of the show should look at the lack of information in this page before reflexively arguing for retention. Ditto for Docking web, below. SolidPlaid 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article for Cprog has already been deleted due to original research and no reliable sources of the genres existence, Now this list of "C prog" artists needs to go for the same reason. Spydrfish 04:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Merge requires sourced content. None is present. GRBerry 03:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional (and minor) tool used in the show Farscape. No outside claim of notability. According to the page, the writers of the show can't keep the facts on this one straight. If they don't care, why should we? SolidPlaid 04:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 02:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe, a search on Google for Talyn and Farscape finds oodles of fan pages, but nothing to establish notability. These ships are characters, a feature of Farscape, but I see nothing of substance. Fans of the show may come in droves to defend the page, but without citations giving us something to hang our hats on, it should be deleted. SolidPlaid 04:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure I know what WP:OSTRICH means, but I am nominating in good faith. It looks like Moya and Talyn are getting many "votes" to retain, but the arguments are repetitive. I still don't see one single citation appearing on the page itself. Rhetorically, I'll ask again, "Why can't citations be found?" SolidPlaid 05:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 03:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe fan page. No claim to outside notability for this ship type. Almost reads like a "how to" pilot it. Google finds plenty of fan pages that mention it, most are indirect.. SolidPlaid 03:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan 00:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe fan page. No claim to outside notability. I searched in Google; many hits, seemingly all fan-based and largely indirect. No doubt a group of editors will fight for retention. To them I suggest making a new wiki, if one does not already exist. SolidPlaid 03:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This group is described as a new political party which will nominate ordinary citizens for the United States Congress by an Internet-based nomination process. However, no sources have been provided other than links to the group's own web site (or miscellaneous political links that don't actually mention this group). The names "GOOOH" and "Get Out of Our House" generate mostly unrelated Google hits, other than the group's own web site and attempts to promote the group on social networking sites; I couldn't find any independent reliable sources. The article was submitted for proposed deletion, but the PROD tag was removed. I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 03:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A prod tag was unceremoniously removed. Elements of the list could be turned into categories such as "Movies set in Seattle". List is not really about popular culture anyway, nothing like "Seattle is rainy" or "Everybody's moving to Seattle" are referenced. Fee Fi Foe Fum 03:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca 20:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a non-notable player. No reliable sources have been provided that show he played in a fully professional league or is otherwise notable. E.g., the Swiss and US clubs are amateur or semi-professional. Jogurney 03:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NawlinWiki 03:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems quite spammy and non-notable, but I fear hitting it with a speedy deletion tag will end up in its being listed here anyway. Fee Fi Foe Fum 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local arterial. Not a part of any numbered highway. —Scott5114↗ 02:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 01:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as unverified and lacking sources for a loooong time, no sources have been provided. Photo is credited nicely, though, which must please the photographer. Anyway, there are an unusual number of different single purpose accounts in the history of this article, notably Feastoffools (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), plus some real editors. The article itself does not in my view establish why we should care, but it does do a decent job of promoting the thing. Noth that we are here for promotion. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - for now, consensus seems to be that a rewrite is/has been most appropriate. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan 00:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essay on cognitive functions or something. According to the talk page, it's a cut and paste from a GFDL source. I don't know the policy on that, but it's a definite AFD candidate so I'm listing it here.-- Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the critic is making the argument that the text might be violating copyright or that the article is really from a single source. It would pay to include in-line citations from authoritative sources and to put in links to other wikipedia articles by double bracketing a term like evolutionary psychology and rewording the article to facilitate such links. The latter effort might show what has or has not already been covered in WP. Please forgive me if you already knew all or some of this. DCDuring 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the notices on your user page discussion tab. DCDuring 13:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The provider and original author of the material actually knows what he is talking about. It is a great first draft. We just need to wikify it. The original deletion issue arose because a bot identified a potential copyright problem which has been resolved. This article is far, far better than many articles not marked for deletion.DCDuring 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC) DCDuring 16:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject might be worthwhile, but it would need a lot of work. The end result won't look much like what we've got. I'd be willing to take a run. DCDuring 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a decision tree: I have put a little time in to trying to encourage the author (Palme) to work on improving it with citations. I don't know how long it would be appropriate to wait.
DCDuring 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reaching a consensus that this stub is to be retained and not deleted ? The original question was whether this article should be merged. Apparent decision was "No, nothing to merge". What would be in this article that would not be covered in modularity of mind? DCDuring 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep.--JForget 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork to Iraq War, Iraqi Insurgency, and Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2006. Isaac Pankonin 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete WP:SD#A7. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 08:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks references and documentation. Band does not appear notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Band accomplishments seem so thin I considered going for speedy delete but the age of the article and number of contributors suggested this route. I'd say delete but I'm very curious how others will view the article. Pigman 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete there is nothing to suggest that this doctor's medical career yet merits inclusion. At less then 7 years in practice, there just isn't anything there (yet). Skimpy Google footprint & Medline trail. Droliver 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion A1 and contested. I don't believe it's speedyable outright (though feel free to speedy for something if you think I'm wrong), but it certainly appears to be less than notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article may be eligible for speedy deletion as of now (i would probably delete it myself, if i were an admin), however, as stated, Brown metal is a new sub genre and more information is coming all the time, soon it will be a legitimate article, and thus, should not be deleted for the time being. I plan on adding more information as well as pictures that help represent Brown metal in the future. I do not believe this article should be deleted yet, but possibly in the future, if i cannot come up with enough information to make this article legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C-briskettt (talk • contribs) 02:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Gp75motorsports 15:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Gp75motorsports[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary school, has a bit more detail than the schools that I have nominated in the past. School seems to have an agricultural theme. I doubt that will help it rise to the level of notablility. SolidPlaid 01:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball delete. Maxim(talk) 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete claims of several gold records defeats the speedy nomination, but I can find no confirmation that their records ever went gold or did anything really. NN band /hoax claim of gold records. Carlossuarez46 01:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. The content remains in the history if anyone wants to merge, but there doesn't appear to be anything sourced. Eluchil404 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe, pure OR, probable copyvio in the pics, no claim to notability, even within universe doesn't seem too important to me, more like a plot device. SolidPlaid 01:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep. John254 01:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way to indepth for an encylopedia, this content should probably be just deleted and a important detail or two be left to merge into a sonic list or something.DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, notability is not inherited. Carlossuarez46 00:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, only arguments for keeping are from article author, whose username and use of the first person, below, indicates relationship with the subject. NawlinWiki 05:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND The Evil Spartan 00:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a non notable person, and hence fails BIO. A google search reveals few topics. CO2 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is clearly non notable, and the article is pure vanity. None of the old or new references support notability of Stanley Dunin one iota •CHILLDOUBT• 13:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, member of several bands notable enough for articles; article now has source; vandalism can be cleaned up. NawlinWiki 05:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable person. Everything that is said in this article is already written in other articles, where information can be verified. Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, see also Wikipedia:Deletion policy). This page has brought nothing but vandalism. The article is also not sourced. Delete. Death2 00:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, wrong place.. Maxim(talk) 22:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much a list of articles on random topics sorted by various categories, like a table of contents of sorts. However, something in this format certainly does not belong in the mainspace. I am listing it here because discussions on moving it elsewhere have failed or stalled. As long as it remains in the mainspace, it is an indiscriminate, directory of very loosely connected topics, and is self-referential, and is a candidate for deletion. If kept, this should be moved as a direct result of this AFD discussion. Coredesat 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contents · Overviews · Academia · Topics · Basic topics · Glossaries · Portals · Categories
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1 office, four employees, very few google hist (<500), no real assertion of notability other than the fact that it was the first economic consulting firm in paris (though founded only 5 years ago) AdamBiswanger1 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Microeconomix : well you can delete it if you think it should be. But as I saw that Nera or Lecg and other economic consulting firms had their own article in the section, I think it would be fair to delete them too... in this case, the categorie "economic consulting" should also be deleted... Best regards. Regarding the conflict of interest, indeed I am the ceo of Microeconomix but I think that the presentation fo microeconomix was as objective as other contributions in the same category.
MicroeconomixOK, no problem. I should have take another name to create this article ;-). I don't understand the argument about the size of company and did not think wikipedia was only for big companies. If this is the case, then this article should indeed be deleted. But I understand that a category "economic consulting firms" or any other category related to firms could not be the purpose of wikipedia.It is a difficult debate to decide wether ant to what extent companies should be included. —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. DS 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a supposed sequel to Flight 29 Down starring the original cast. However, there appear to be no sources saying that such a sequel is being produced and no relevant references on IMDB or Google. The article creator is now claiming (on the talk page only) that it's going to be a 3-d animated show on YouTube -- however, the article still implies it's an actual live-action filmed show with the original cast. The most charitable reading of this is that it's a fan-produced animated show on YouTube, which is nowhere near sufficient notability (at this time) for an article. In my opinion, it's probably a hoax from bottom to top.
The related article, List of Hartwell High episodes will be added to this once I jump through the right hoops.
ArglebargleIV 17:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
-- ArglebargleIV 17:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just Leave it alone, it think that it should be put back up because the ratings on the show are very high on youtube