The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The song has only made a mixtape appearance; Even though it has one reference, it's not enough to confirm the notability of this song; MISC note: no info confirmed of a new Bow Wow album Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 18:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) for both entertainers and for porn actors. - JulesN Talk 23:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not sure how someone could mix up the glamour model with the conservative MP other than through a spelling error. Ignoring the COI issues for the moment the article needs better verification of notability but, I'm thinking alot of people in Great Britain when they hear the name spoken think of this one as much as the politician. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:NOR. Sandstein (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Entire essay is an original research and WP:SYN violation. None of the sources actually reference the word justifiable insurrection. Just as in last time, google searches tailored to the words do not turn up any references that support any of the content of the article. None of the issues from the last AFD have been resolved. After all of the original research is removed, there is no actual article remaining. From the original AFD nomination, which still is relevant: neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words. Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis. WP:NOT for Essays.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising. Only contributors are the article creator and anons. Been tagged for notability and references since January. Raven in Orbit (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for the reasons given in the nomination. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for deletion as follows:
The result was keep.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, or collections of various items related to same. No cites - has been tagged with "This article does not cite any references or sources" since May 2007. Writtenonsand (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally prodded, but the author removed it. This article has no sources to show notability. We have a few links to directory–style listings, but nothing of substance. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. Merging is not appropriate. A one sentence (or two) summary can be added to the assumed parent article for the school. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an unreferenced summary of alleged controversies involving a high school magazine. There are no sources, just a claim of newspaper coverage on one occasion and another mention of an article in response to a major newspaper. The article is largely original research claiming notability without proof. Given that the article has also been a target for high school vanity (see the talk page for trolling comments), it should be deleted or possibly merged to Melbourne High School if there is anything worth salvaging. Harro5 21:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be somebody's essay about the subject Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable to meet inclusion criteria. Apparantly is a chess player but according to fide rankings is #51 in Switzerland so a decent player but not exceptional. A google search suggests that the subject has written a popular checkers (thats Draughts for us Brits) but I couldn't see anything in the first 50 or so hits that hints at event the slightest bit being suitable for writing a biographical article. The article itself lacks reliable sources and cannot therefore meet our verification policy before we even think aboout notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like a dilettante than a serious chess player or computer programmer. PatGallacher (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Unremarkable piece of fan freeware. Black Kite 17:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be just some game some guy wrote and put on the web. Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW -Djsasso (talk) 13:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic; also appears to violate several aspects of WP:MOS. See User:Globalecon/Global_Economics. Enigma message 21:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Black Kite 19:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Avoda (2nd nomination)
Went through one AfD where it was "relisted", whatever that means, with an apparent no consensus result. Went through a second nomination where it appears it was a copyright violation. Went through a PROD deletion where it was nominated for deletion for lack of reliable sources to prove notability. The PROD deletion was overturned following a request at WP:DRV. Even the DRV nominator said, "I agree that the information in this article cannot be verified by an outside published source". There are no reliable sources anywhere that I can find that this is a notable camp. There are claims, and I will gladly withdraw this nomination if sources are forthcoming, that it's the oldest Jewish summer camp in New England, but without reliable sourcing, this has to be deleted. Corvus cornixtalk 21:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No reliable sources that it will even be made at the moment. Black Kite 19:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nottingham is a project first announced back in January 2007; production was delayed because of the writers' strike -- see my userfied version at User:Erik/Nottingham (film). There is no guarantee that production will pick up, and per the notability guidelines for future films, a stand-alone article is not yet warranted. It is already briefly listed at List of films and television series featuring Robin Hood. When production begins, the article can be revived. (Current article was proposed for deletion, but it was challenged.) Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete and salt by Cobaltbluetony, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable as per WP:BIO. Relationship does not confer notability. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged for references, orphan status, notability and general cleanup since June 2006 and June 2007. It also has untagged but significant problems with neutrality. This is a BLP article (about a 36 year old photographer) with marginal notability and very little activity, and as such it will be generally difficult to maintain this article at a high standard unless/until the subject becomes more notable. We can include it at that time. Avruch T 20:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper whose albums are on his own label. All claims of notability are unsourced. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Tagged for lack of references since June '07. Albums are similarly non-notable and fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 20:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Falun Gong and live organ harvesting as POV fork. Not deleted outright to give people the opportunity to merge useable content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 06:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this while looking through some uncategorized articles. It's hopelessly and irrevocably mired in an anti-PRC, pro-Falun Gong POV mess. This article also contains original research and written like an essay or a political pamphlet. It it unfit for an encyclopedia and needs to be deleted. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn as duplicate, non-admin closure by --Lenticel (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural. Prodded for the 2nd time. Concern was "Unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary for non-notable fictional element; single "reference" is to an unreliable source." Neutral on this. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn as duplicate. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Prince Xizor (if there is consensus that another redirect target is preferable, please enact it - thanks). Black Kite 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional organization. Sole reference is to in-universe unreliable source. Entirely plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to the correct spelling. I'm using Rambriksh Benipuri, as it is the variant with the most Google hits, and will create a redirect from Ramvriksh Benipuri. Sandstein (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. The article claims this man was a "prominent writer" but google returns less than 40 hist for him (mostly wiki mirrors) and Amazon, zero. The article is full of positive pov, as if written by an admirer. This may well be a hoax, since a search for one of his books returns only 2 ghits, the article itself and a mirror. Damiens.rf 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local newspaper. Although google search shows several ghits, maximum are blogs, forums etc. No significant coverage in reliable source. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE: has not played in a professional game; see also WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The existence of an AMG page almost always points to notability; and there are enough additional sources now that I believe the band passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deleted on April 23 for failing WP:Band. Subsequent speedy for recreation of deleted material was declined. The article is no different to the version that was speedy deleted. It fails to assert any notability. The band is signed to a minor label (not notable - article redirects to Lance King). None of their releases have pages (Present Day is linked to present day, as in today). Nouse4aname (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It helps to read the articles discussion page first to know the articles intentions. There are a slew of bands and artists that fail WP:Bands, just check all the bands that are linked on the articles page. Thus why it falls under said WP:HMM project as notable. Rsdtc (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I need more info to change my mind from a delete.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 15:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]"Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion."
The result was Speedily delete as G3 vandalism hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax article. There is no island as described. The whole thing is a work of fiction. GNUSMAS : TALK 18:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn book by nn author. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is every small town paper inherently notable? I don't think so, and nothing indicates that this particular one passes WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable newspaper that's worthy of inclusion.Ecoleetage (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominated once previously three years ago, seems to have gotten a lot of "keep, interesting and useful" sort of comments. There do not appear to be reliable sources that establish the notability of this direct-to-DVD documentary, written by someone who does not appear to be notable enough for an article and narrated by someone similarly non-notable. Otto4711 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Academic with one book, which has been reviewed but doesn't meet the standards in WP:PROF; the subject, with dozens of others, of an attack piece by advocacy group Campus Watch, which is the only available independent source about her. Article contributed to, by among others, members of the sockfarm at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evidence-based. Please ignore WP:HOTTIE, as I am resolutely doing. Relata refero (disp.) 18:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per lack of sources, lack of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced short bio; actress in 200 movies (as an extra? did she star? no sources, as usual. Any normal bio details? no... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 17:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this institution is notable, this is hardly a decent beginning of an article. Then, again, it may not be notable - just because you call yourself a college doesn't mean its a secondary educational instution - rather than an unaffiliated after-school test prep tutory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bduke (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, it is just a school choir and self-promoting WazzaMan (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: TerriersFan. You need to read wikipedia's guidelines again. Find the sources yourself, then add it to wikipedia. Everything needs to be referenced. Keylock191 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC) keylock191[reply]
The result was Keep per PeaceNT's reference - passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minimally meets WP:MUSIC by claiming to have toured internationally but I'm having some trouble finding sufficient WP:V to support the article. Pigman☿ 17:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
\
The result was delete. I have noticed the calls for expanding this, but a look at the article indicates that it runs afoul of WP:CSD#A1 on lack of context. The entire content is "*Joe Frank Radio Artist, Santa Monica, California", and when the article is in a condition like that it is misleading and not useful to anyone. If anyone wants to recreate this, please go right ahead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced one-liner posing as an article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a view that 'key' parts of this article should be merged to St. Joseph's Institution. If any editor wants to do this, I will be quite happy to restore this to user space to assist such a merge, but the article as it stands is too long and inappropriately written to just add to the school article and redirect. Bduke (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school/corps, no major notability established. No sources, citations... seicer | talk | contribs 17:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No major notability established outside of a reference in a magazine. seicer | talk | contribs 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Any editor may create a redirect. Sandstein (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sole claim to notability is marrying Louis XIV's court musician and bearing "19" children. There's no evidence she was notable for everything else and the book mentions are limited to this one questionably accurate sentence. Notability is not inherited and the line is covered in his, she isn't notable enough for her own. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7. Only substantial contributions were by User:Recurring dreams who has voted delete. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! It consists of an indoor *and* an outdoor pool. It also consists of zero notability with RS coverage limited to events at the aquatic centre. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep in the sense of "not delete". Whether merging or redirection is appropriate can be discussed on the talk pages. Sandstein (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Armstong-Jones is not royal even though the incidence of his birth places him in line of succession to the British throne. That fact is best recorded there, where he appears, and also on his father's page, where all relevant information has already been merged. This page doesn't really serve to any encyclopedic purpose. The boy is, himself, not a non-notable individual within a notable group which already has a page. Charles 17:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the exact same reason (younger sister):
I am also leaning towards a merge, but we should note that there are some wider issues here. This issue has come up in deletion discussions before. Just how important do minor royals have to be to become inherently notable? I would draw the line at the grandchildren of a monarch, but it seems other would draw it lower. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he won't be this high up the succession for ever. There are by my calculation 8 people under 30, all currently childless, higher than him in the succession, it's likely most of them will have kids before long. If the British monarchy survives in its present form then he will probably slip quite substantially down the succession in his lifetime, and he could easily slip significantly in the next few years. PatGallacher (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no strong, policy based, reason for deletion given, consensus says keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable album of an otherwise notable musician - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fundraiser. Sandstein (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page originally started with the phrase: "Fund raiser is defined in Italian as..." and went on to give a definition, in Italian. Though now in English and somewhat expanded, it is still no more than a dicdef with spurious "How to" advice and, as far as I can see, has no hope of developing into anything more than a dicdef. Emeraude (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect per Dhartung. Sandstein (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just one of the seating sections of a Stadium. Also no refs. Buc (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (all). There is no consensus to delete these albums, there is also not much discussion regarding a merge, which may be appropriate. Merging is a non-afd, non-admin procedure that anyone can do where appropriate without prior discussion. Prior discussion is recommended however for contentious or possibly controversial merges. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable album of an otherwise notable musician - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why these albums do not fit the Wiki album project. Greg Brown is a very note-worthy folk musician and I believe his albums are just as noteworthy and any of the others that are on here. He has many notable ties to the folk music world and his career is well-followed. All his albums have high All-Music ratings and placing them in the Wiki album project gives others the chance to add to the album info without having to do the initial grunt-work of listing credits, songs, etc. Thanks. User:Airproofing
The result was delete.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RS coverage limited to events at the country club. No evidence this country club is in any way notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete as WP:OR, and also as a likely creation of a sock- or meatpuppet of a banned user. Sandstein (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like pretty clear original research, in that it appears to be making a very strong argument by weaving together sources and quotations that don't support this argument. I do not believe there is anything to be salvaged here; the premise makes no sense from the perspective of the mainstream physics community, and there's no evidence that the viewpoint is notable. SCZenz (talk) 15:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever keeps making comments about this article being mathematical and therefore not research is missing the point. The WP:OR policy is not designed to prevent editors from gathering data and drawing conclusion from them. It is not designed to enjoin editors against a specific activity. It is designed to prevent material that is novel and unique from being introduced into wikipedia. So, even though the proof that (for example) e is irrational requires nothing more than knowledge and applications of the properties of real numbers, it does not belong in wikipedia unless we are summarizing a treatment from an outside source. The inherent validity of the claim is not what makes it research or not. Empirical claims are no different from theoretical claims as far as wikipedia is concerned--even though there is a gulf between them philosophically. You seem to be capable of understanding the mathematical implications of these articles, so let's make sure you can understand the implications of our arguments. Your defense is based on an incorrect connotation of the word research. You interpret research to mean non-tautological results from empirical data. For one, that isn't strictly true. For another thing, that is not how wikipedia defines research. I know I'm being repetitive, but I need to make sure this point is clear. If I need to be even more elementary, let me. the research is not the creation of the theoretical result (in this case, the paradox) from axioms. The research is the revelation of that result to the world. Regardless of the inherent truth of any theoretical claim, someone, somewhere has to reveal it. The policy of wikipedia is that the revelation not occur here first. Provide a clear, cited source that reveals the paradox and shows that it is notable, then you can keep the article. Until then, no dice.
Protonk (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Those calling to delete have not adequately answered the arguments that this organization has received a little bit of coverage, something which matters according to the WP:N guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see anything that shows this one as being notable. Giving it a chance at AFD instead of speedy in case I'm missing something. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Kadet Remaja Sekolah Malaysia. As an individual unit of a national youth organization, this is not sufficiently notable. Redirecting it to the article on the national organization keeps the material in the history and allows someone to merge relevant material to the article on the national organization. The Scout people are doing this all the time. Bduke (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a school organization in Malaysia with extensive history but no references and no evidence of outside notability. --Finngall talk 15:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN book. Related AFD at Think and Grow Rich!: The Original Version, Restored and Revised. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Think and Grow Rich. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be covered in Think and Grow Rich if it is Notable. Failed Prod. Main article also nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think and Grow Rich Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep in light of the addition of some third party sources which establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has not been established. A notability tag has been on it for nearly 3 months now. No third-party references still. So fails WP:WEB. Otterathome (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by original/only editor's request. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company that has been speedy-deleted and recreated by original author. No independent media coverage apparent. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see...
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9901084-7.html
http://media.baliz-geospatial.com/fr/blogue/quels-sont-les-grands-titres-des-nouvelles-pres-de-chez-vous
http://www.visualbeta.es/3802/aplicaciones-web/metacarta-noticias-geolocalizadas/
http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/531211.php
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9901084-7.html?tag=blog.1
By the usual measures of size (over 50 employees, over $5m in receipts) MetaCarta is somewhere in the top 100,000 US firms, perhaps not notable in and of itself, but quite sizeable for high tech. More importantly, MetaCarta has been singled out for innovation on several occasions, e.g. as a Red Herring Top 100 innovator (2005) and as one of KMWorld's 100 Companies that Matter (2007). I'd be happy to add links but I'm not sure it's right for me to edit the page (the info is available from the company website). The controversy mentioned earlier may not matter much now, but was very real at the time. Another aspect of the company that may be more worth mentioning is its support for FOSS, in particular the OpenLayers library. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My calendar is one year off. The awards were 2004, http://www.redherring.com/Home/11067 and 2006 http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=15156&PageNum=2 , sorry. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another factor toward notability is that industry analysts from the major research and advisory firms (Gartner, Forrester, Seybold, IDG, etc) now consider the company notable enough to cover it. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)— MetaCartaEmployee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Talk edits to User:Madcoverboy include calling me a "moron", refusing to engage in a dialogue by blanking comments, etc.: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Looking at SitnikovI's talk page, he has engaged in a series of actions that have been warned against in connection with advertising. As always I try to WP:AGF, but it seems the user is trying really hard to get blocked. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the corporate notability guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP, and I think the criteria listed there are
easily met. The company is regularly written about in business publications such as the Boston Business Journal and Forbes.com, in trade publications
such as SearchEngineJournal, Directions Magazine, AllPointsBlog, and IEEEE Computer, and is regularly covered by analysts (IDG, Forrester, Gartner etc.) The company web page at http://www.metacarta.com/news-and-events-in-the-news.htm documents over a hundred and fifty such writeups, and less than half of these are occasioned by press releases by the company itself. The rest is self-standing, clearly meeting the WP:CORP guidelines -- this is particularly clear for the awards. Add to the print material a rather sizeable web footprint (Google has over 81,000 hits, and only a small fraction of these are at the company website) and it seems the company passes the notability criteria easily. MetaCartaEmployee (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find Forbes 500 comment insulting, still - "teddy bear stuff" or not, advertising or not, right or wrong - yes, it wasn't personal, but it was meant to provoke me anyway and maybe I shouldn't have used the word "moron", but there you go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.128.107 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) — 98.216.128.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, this isn't a personal thing - I'm sorry, I'm the only one who see it that way, of course. And thank you for educating me on the matters of Wikipedia and how it existed along with all the policies/guidelines before I started this article and, of course, tried to destroy it all in the process - now I'm feeling so enlightened, its just amazing. Live and learn, as they say. Would I make it easier for you if I'll just delete an article right now? Would you breathe a sigh of relief, perhaps?
Well, at least someone around here have some decency in not trying to turn this into an idiotic spectacle, even though it took me such a long time to prove that this have nothing to do with vandalism.
Bye now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SitnikovI (talk • contribs) 16:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I'm going to follow the suggestions presented by User:Kariteh and drop the tables into their respective articles. Since the history needs to stay visible to satisfy licensing requirements, I'm going to redirect the article under discussion to Final Fantasy (series) for the time being--feel free to change it in the future if a more appropriate target is found. --jonny-mt 01:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unorganized list of names. The notable information is already present in other, relevant articles (as shown by the out-of-date merge tags), so this article is redundant and unnecessary. Kariteh (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real indication of notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ScarianCall me Pat! 08:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
violation of WP:CRYSTAL - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks likely to qualify for A7- group speedy, and I did so twice. But something was nagging in my brain on this one that I might be missing something, so I'm giving it an AFD chance instead. But beyond a nagging doubt, I really don't see why this group would be notable given what is presented on the article. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 deleted a couple of times, I've decided to give this a chance at AFD this time. I just do not see this rising to the necessary level of notability. Even the "Bloody Sunday" case mentioned does not IMHO give notability to the law firm involved, even if the case itself is notable. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reasons. Nearly a working definition of a random collection of information or listcruft, this page is simply a list when a supervillain has appeared in comic books. It has been tagged for lack of citations since September 2006 with extremely little editorial interest since. The publisher of this comic book character is capable of providing published bibliographies of its copyrighted characters if it wishes to, Wikipedia is not the place for primary source lists with no practical context.
There are other bibliographies similar to this one. Based on the outcome of this AfD I'll list several of them in a later group AfD nomination. Markeer 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted because it does not appear to meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion at WP:CORP. Also, as written, this article is mere PR marketing fluff. Article contributors have been involved in linkspamming, indicating that this article may exist as a marketing tool. Deli nk (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously proposed (not by me) as a db-bio speedy deletion, but the speedy was declined by stating that the article does assert the importance of the subject. I suppose that hinges on whether "was the Republican nominee for [C]ongress" constitutes an assertion of notability. It is my contention that it does not -- or, more relevantly, that even if it does constitute an assertion of notability, it is not sufficient to establish that notability. Powers T 13:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded, Unable to bring up any news sources for this webcomic. Google search [40] yields under 5000 hits. Article has been tagged with notability and references concerns for 7 months.
The result was Keep ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable "loyalty program" which is in essence nothing more than an employee benefits scheme Murtoa (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyright infringement. bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 01:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barely-notable, but with no sources for (what would be) the notability claims. A game programmer that worked for some big and small companies with varied degrees of success. Not an influential person, IMHO. A previous PROD was denied on the basis that sources should be added. Damiens.rf 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3 vandalism, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. No Google hits, South Park episodes are usually announced less than a week before airing, no episodes will air before autumn. 96T (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No citations to reliable sources, no claim of significant third-party coverage. Does not pass WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This bassist may be non-notable due him being in a famous band but there is nothing more to say about him beyond what is already written in the main article so he does not deserve his own article and I doubt there ever will be. Munci (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, limited to local scope, "onesource" - and that one scope basically says "No more Slo Ball Placement", so that source created the beginning and end of this topic, hence WP:ONEEVENT - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 11:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is the second nomination, but the first addressed the existence or otherwise of the competition. My concern is over notability. Virtually no third party sources. Personally, I can't see that this meets the notability rules. Which is unfortunate, but true. Traditional unionist (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability THobern 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete per consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local Councillor, lost at last general election, fails WP:BIO, not a notable person. First AfD was closed because it was not listed correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to lack of reliable sources to verify the article and failing the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, search for information on subject reveals no information, cannot find any references to support the given information ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Live class is a "general term" that is unsearchable for obvious reasons. The article is pure OR, synthesizing bits from a number of other distance and in person class issues. There is a merge proposal but this wouldn't add anything to distance education and is not a likely search term to be worthy of a re-direct. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. This article is just a resume. Damiens.rf 13:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for a non-notable book with 4 google hits. Damiens.rf 19:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, website does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this article be deleted, as it appears to be about a non-notable wrestling website. There are no reliable sources listed and any claims of notability appear to relate to associated people, not the website itself. If some sources could be listed, it would be a good start towards making this a good article. Tnxman307 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it is a notable website, I don't think it should have it's own article. RC-0722 247.5/1 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oduwildman (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The web site does NOT rely on the Association. In fact, the media web site gets 10-15 times the traffic the association site does. You're telling me that a 13-year media web site (Which was independent prior to 2004) and has its news running on ESPN and the USA Today isn't worthy of a listing. I'm sorry I don't quite "grasp" your wikipedia relevance, but this site is relevant to thousands and thousands of people. I'm trying to keep building the listing to please you wiki people who obviously know ZERO about wrestling. Instead of being a pain in the butt, how about some tips on what else you people would want to see.
Google InterMat
Oduwildman (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright guys, have your fun. If that's how it's set up, that's how it's set up. Oduwildman (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. not a single, not enough info. LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to The Amanda Show, Copyvio from http://www.tv.com/the-amanda-show/show/2917/episode_guide.html .--Otterathome (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no references Llamabr (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 11:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you wanna delete this Opera Dragonfly entry, BUT, this product is sure to be released. This product is documented by Opera developpers on several official blog. This entry will be created again, as soon as it will be released in the forthcoming days. (3 days from now on) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.200.209.241 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. This title, however, will be redirected as a [slightly] plausible search term for the parent. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the notability requirement for fiction-related articles. In addition, includes much more information not directly related to either the subject of the article or the fictional work from which it is derived. Goes on to cite an irrelevant example of the principle not occurring in another of the author's works. This subject merits no more than a one-line mention in the Zodiac page. Juansmith (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Won a local competition - there's nothing else. Black Kite 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be little more than self-promotion. Sources seem to be little more than the person's own website and some local newspapers, etc. It is therefore in violation of the following notability guideline: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 13:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes a role or job level at a specific company (London Underground). It is unsourced, and does not seem verifiable in this detail. As long as this company-internal role is unknown to the wider public (which the few Google hits do not seem to indicate), the topic fails WP:N. Tagged with ((notability)) since June 07; PROD was contested. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ZsinjTalk 05:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. Failed prod - removed as first edit of user:Krowder . Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable fringe theory and probably original research. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parochial, non-notable idea that is basically original research. In fact, the idea is held by only one guy (Brandenburg) who is apparently going around Wikipedia blasting his wares to gain notoriety for his fringe theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(from User_talk:Deepthought137) I have decided to make the theory either "famous or infamous" by the end of this year. I will be presenting the theory to the physics community again, in its newest form at the American Physical Society Meeting in Portland Oregon may 15-17. I also have submitted yet another article it to International Journal of Theoretical Physics, and I am awaiting refree reports. I am working to maximize press coverage of this, so if you see headlines (hopefully good) and also hear the predicatable cries of "Bah Humbug!" from my learned colleages in the string theory community, you will know I have succeeded. If this happens, where best for the eager public to gain basic knowledge of the theory that to look it up on Wikipedia?
The result was keep. The article has been substantially improved and eight references were added during the AfD. Well done. Sandstein (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete patent original research. Article has been tagged for cleanup for over a year - AfD is not for general cleanup issues, but this article has serious verifiability problems. Chardish (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that this is a valid topic for a list, all members of the list are now references. Davewild (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced racial biology-based list. Rejected prod. Includes unreferenced assertions about the ethnicity of living people. John (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google throws up nothing of note[43]. Non-notable journeyman journalist who showed up here to write an article about himself, violating WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, WP:Single-purpose account, etc., etc., etc. This thing should've been speedied, but we can do it here with the same result. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure). Following no comment at all to delete, the nominator withdrew the nomination on the basis of the consensus formed, that achieving 2 blue ribbons is notable. Proposals to merge can be discussed at the article's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability; totally unreferenced. Given that elementary schools are as a rule of thumb non-notable, this means it probably isn't. If we keep this it should be moved to the page for the appropriate school district. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Nomination Withdrawn. Two blue ribbons is sufficiently notable. That said, this might be better merged into the article on its school district if the only major detail available about the school is the two blue ribbons. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL. Black Kite 19:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources/citations. —ScouterSig 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Black Kite 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Crystal: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No sources/citations. —ScouterSig 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for notability concerns since last September. It appears to be about a piano piece, but contains no information about the composer of the song or any reason why it would be considered noteworthy. I suspect that it may be this piano piece by "BAUMGARTNE", which may be Paul Baumgartner — or may not. WP:MUSIC#Songs recommends that most articles for songs be turned into redirects to an appropriate artist or composer, but since this article doesn't indicate who that composer is we can't tell what the target of a redirect should be. And since there's clearly nobody interested in expanding the article into something useful, I'm nominating the page for deletion (a first for me). Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to Keep. A merge may or may not be suitable, but that is for the talkpages of the relevant articles at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just in-universe plot summary from the Crimson Empire comic series. More appropriate for Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I have read the argument from Eastmain which is not unreasonable, but it does not refute the fact that the list is at present an incomplete and unannotated list of bluelinked articles, duplicating a category exactly (apart from being incomplete). Since the consensus appears to be to delete this article, I cannot let that argument overrule it. Note that recreating an article which addresses the concerns given in this AFD will not run afoul of WP:CSD#G4 on recreations, and if anyone wants the content as a basis for further work just ping me or another admin and it will be provided to you in some form. (If you request it from another admin, just point them to this AFD.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. This list is not particulary informative, and the topic would be better served by a category. Now that we have Category:Railway stations served by Southern, which performs a very similar, although not identical role, this would appear to have been achieved and therefore this page can go. (That the list is incomplete is not a reason for deletion in itself: it would be a straightforward but dull task to complete it.) RFBailey (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A literary movement whose only evidence of existence is in Wiki mirrors. I don't think so. Most prominent author of the movement known only by a screen name. Doubly so. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected to Supergrass Is 10. This was a case of duplicate articles with the same content. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is another article with the same name except the title has a capital I for the Is part of the title TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the author of Juvenile Injustice The Chicago Story ;Published in 2003, the book is based on the murder of Ryan Harris. "The 1998 case captured national headlines as the two boys became the youngest children in the nation ever formally accused of murder". Ryan Harris an 11-year-old African American girl was brutally raped and murdered on the south side of Chicago in the summer of 1998. Two young boys seven and eight were held and charged with her murder, making them the youngest accused murders in the history of the United States. The book gathered national attention and quickly became a source for researchers in that genre.The Ryan Harris murder and the story subsequently changed the Laws governing the detention of minors in 2004. Mr. Benjamin is also an official candidate for the City Of Miami Mayoral Elections November 2013. Jeff Benjamin is also television analyst, who has appeared on Court TV, MSNBC ,CBS and a variety of local networks. Jeff Benjamin was born on the Caribbean Island of Trinidad. His mother was a Grenadian citizen who migrated to the United States in the early sixties. His father's family are Russian Jews who migrated to the United States in the early 1900's. Mr. Benjamin also possesses a P.H.D in Neuro EEG and recently finished writing; Love & Cholera a book based on the Haitian Earthquake in 2010 Juvenile injustice : the Chicago story / by Jeff Benjamin. Is available at most Public Libraries http://www.chipublib.org/search/details/cn/1974610?branch=93 Author: Benjamin, Jeff. Publisher: Bloomington, IN : 1stBooks Library, c2004. ISBN: 1414021860 (acid-free paper) : Description: vi, 349 p. : ill. ; 24 cm. Subject: Murder Illinois Chicago. Homicide Illinois Chicago. Murder victims Illinois Chicago. Trials (Murder) Illinois Chicago. Trial transcripts Illinois Chicago. Notes: "Based on the true story."--Back of jacket.
More information on this candidate can be found at:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jeff-Benjamin-For-Mayor-City-Of-Miami/140607496034643?ref=stream www.jeffbenjaminformayor.com
The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Salisbury seems unnotable in his own right. Evident by the title, the only thing he is notable for is marrying Frances Webb. Tavix (talk) 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. The earlier opinions could not take his status as "Obie Yadgar" into account, for which Novickas has added references. Would probably have yielded a "keep" consensus after a relisting. Sandstein (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Writer who has paid to have books printed through notorious vanity press AuthorHouse. Both titles completely fail WP:BK. Google throws up nothing of consequence, significance, notability, or even general interest. Qworty (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A group problem solving technique. No references to help us judge its notability. Difficult to judge from a Google search for "affinity technique" because many of the hits relate to affinity chromatography. Also written as an how-to guide. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a tie between "merge" and "delete", so technically no consensus to delete. As there's consensus that this should not currently be a separate article, I'm merging the first section only to TheForce.Net, but not the second, which sounds spurious and trivial ("Some members of Theforce.net's message board disagree..."). Per WP:V, anyone may then delete the merged content from TheForce.Net if no sources are provided. Sandstein (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No discernible progress to substantiate claims or establish notability since last AfD. One suggested merge destination -- Curtis Saxton -- still does not exist. Article still does not meet WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The provided news source from Newsnet10 doesn't establish notability for the subject, and the news source from accessmylibrary doesn't appear to contain anything either. The lack of proven notability, plus the consensus determined from this discussion has lead me to close this as delete. Malinaccier (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable convention, no claims of notability, no sources to prove notability. Corvus cornixtalk 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]