The result was Procedural Close. Article was redirected to Boss (video games), so this debate is both 6 weeks old and moot. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes a childish mindset that is both not notable and unverified. And actually, it can't BE verified. -- Cronocke (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see it's got sources nicely lined up, but this is just way too ephemeral. It doesn't really seem very 'encyclopedic'. Though that's a rather ephemeral thing for me to say, ironically. - Vianello (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spammily written article on a software product, Google news hits are mostly for Testicular Cancer Exam and a couple of PRwires Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Nakon: This can be improved..for example, I just removed advertisement sounding sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whaatt (talk • contribs) 00:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merged into the Computer-based training article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software was released just a week ago. I think it's not notable, but I'm listing it here because I'm unsure (WP:SOFTWARE is no good). Article created by a SPA with a COI whose only other contributions are wikilinking to this article from other pages. Search on Google for '"datawasp "significant data systems"' returns few hits, most of them from download mirror sites. /Carson 23:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY. This article appears to have been improved to show notability with better sources. Bearian (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No citations to reliable sources, no assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Single cited source is to in-franchise, in-universe plot summary; no material present that offers a real-world treatment of the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by an IP (probably the creator). Non-notable journalist, a Google search shows no results for this reporter other than on Wikipedia Cunard (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. There are no PubMed results for "Hatzfeldt syndrome"; "Hatzfeld" only gets hits in author names, mostly in molecular biology papers. There are no PubMed results for "Systemic Neuro-Epiphysial Disorder", and there shouldn't be, because there are no anatomical structures to which the term "neuroepiphyseal" could apply; I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "neuroepiphysis", at least not in people. A Google search gets only two hits in seemingly reputable sites that are not Wikipedia mirrors: this and this. For a quite detailed critique by User:Fuzzform of why this article makes absolutely no sense scientifically, please see User_talk:Fvasconcellos#Re:_Hatzfeldt_Syndrome. By the way, I intend to notify WP:MED of this discussion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable player - no evidence he has played in a fully professional league; article states he currently plays for SM Caen but he is not listed on their official site; limited Google hits GiantSnowman 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. chaser - t 18:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small part actor. Ghits yield very little in terms of biographical content, mainly filmography. Fails WP:N for me due to lack of real information about the person beyond filmography lists. treelo talk 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. chaser - t 20:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Tagged for better refs since November 2007, but continues to lack any evidence of notability through independent, reliable secondary sources. Largely a resumé, and without good secondary sources we can't write an encyclopedic bio. MastCell Talk 22:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N (and various more specific branches of it). No prejudice against recreation should sufficient reliable sources be found which can verify notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently he wrote a well-regarded book about the Berne Trial, a notable event in the history of antisemitism. It's not quite clear from the article, though, whether this is enough to warrant an article per WP:PROF. His date of birth and death appear to be uncertain (indicating that his life hasn't been covered in any detail by anyone), and the assertion of him being a scholarly authority is not substantiated with an inline citation. The name is a common one in Switzerland, so Google yields many hits about unrelated persons. Sandstein (talk) 22:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Lara❤Love 22:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which was created and mostly edited by a now-blocked sockpuppet army, is a coatrack for uncited criticism. It has almost no biographical content. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as meeting WP:MUSIC due to the second album being released. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable as per WP:MUSIC -- the only source is a blogspot link and a myspace page. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete G10 --B (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One look at the article should be enough. 21655 憎 - ταλκ 22:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the apparent references are copyvios, since they are clips from newspapers hosted on his own personal site, and are too small to be readable in any case. The Youtube segment copied from TVA Montreal just provides his own account of how he helped out in one case of a missing child. (Nothing is quoted from any of the official investigators to confirm his role in the case). The article needs much more serious references to confirm the claims made and to establish his notability. Article was created by User:Robert Lindblad who is presumably the subject, which raises questions under our WP:AUTO and WP:COI guidelines. WP:AUTO states that Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged.. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re EdJohnston & Terraxos
Their is one news article that may be considered too small to read however it can be blown up for a better view by the reader. The Youtube segment is not only Robert Lindblads' own account as it was verified and confirmed by the parents of the child, the investigative reporters of Le Journal de Montreal, and that of the investigative reporters of "J.E. en direct". The police never reveal sources as it is part of the job of an investigator not to reveal sources however the parents of the missing child do confirm Robert Lindblads' role in the investigation in the Le Journal de Montreal article of 31-5-98 as do the investigative reporters of J.E. en direct. More references, proving that Robert Lindblads' notability is not related to one single event, in which the cases were active at the time have been added. These articles being that of The Ottawa Sun (2006) and the S.O.S. (TV-Asahi, Japan 2005) documentary. A radio interview from 2007 has also been added. The French-language coverage is not trivial at all as it is the first proven event recorded in history relating to an active case of a missing child that was solved by a psychic within 2 minutes. The evidence is clear as in Le Journal de Montreal article of 31-5-98 it states that the parents mentioned they called Robert Lindblad and were shocked to hear him state that their child had accidently drowned including where his body would be found and the very next day the article of Le Journal de Montreal of 1-6-98 states that the childs' corpse was found floating in the body of water that Robert Lindblad indicated to the parents. Robert Lindblads' work has been and continues do be done on a daily basis, is highly confidential and sensitive. However a few of the "then active" cases have been discussed in the aforementioned articles and interviews. As an investigator the cases Robert Lindblad works on a daily basis are private and not related to the press. The Dreamtalk interview in August of 2007 and other relavent articles and interviews dimisses the claim of falling into obscurity even though obscurity is part of the realm of a private investigator.
Re Cyberghostface Concerning COI From where do you get promoting your own intetrest? This is in the interest of all Wikipedia readers and is not a self promotion as it relates to the subject of psychics which is and has been included in Wikipedia for many years already. Concerning WP This article is backed up by proven and verified facts from the news articles of Le Journal de Montreal, the J.E. investigative team, and the parents of the missing child to deny reports that follow each other certifiably dated in sequence is to err in judgement. You are in error concerning the WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Bearian Concerning WP:N you are in error. As defined by Wikipedias' guidelines "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition" Their are 11 articles printed and broadcasts from Canada, the United States, England, and Japan concerning more than one case that specifically meet Wikipedias'guidelines and by the way these are high-quality and reliable sources which are verifiable. As for the page being previously deleted it should be ignored as the person in charge at that point did not bother to spend the time or effort to do the verifications and decided on a prejudicial whim to delete the page. I know this because the articles are verifiable. The 11 articles and interviews from England, Japan, Canada, and the United States dismisses your account of "A person who lives in obscurity is, by definition, not notable."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Stifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for verifying them however once again "notability" as defined by Wikipedias' own guidelines is "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition" Their are 11 articles printed and broadcast from Canada, the United States, England, and Japan concerning more than one case that specifically meet Wikipedias'guidelines including recognition of peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. POV fork, again. So title was also protected. - Nabla (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV title: Ukrainian Revolution is applied to events in Ukraine relating to the October Revolution of 1917, but there was no "Revolution of 1918". Historians consider Nestor Makhno and the Ukrainian anarchists to be but one of many players in the Civil War.
This content fork of Makhnovism has been successfully proposed for deletion before, and I expect it to be deleted again without significant debate. But agreeing on a formal AfD now will allow subsequent reintroductions of this title to be speedy deleted. —Michael Z. 2008-04-29 21:20 Z
Clarification: The content of the article is not in jeopardy, because it will remain in the article Makhnovism. (This copy of that article was created by a new editor in an attempt to rename that article against consensus.) —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 19:12 Z
I'd like to emphasize that this is not a proposal to remove any encyclopedic material, only this duplicate of the article Makhnovism. A serious vote to keep should explain what text is expected to remain under this title. —Michael Z. 2008-04-30 14:43 Z
It looks like there's some support for merging the this version into Makhnovism. Anyone is welcome to do so immediately, since that article is not under discussion here, and I'm sure your efforts will improve it.
Most of the "keep" votes seem to have no problem with deleting this title. So let's do that, because the title seems to be indefensible, lacking references from academic histories (as opposed to political works). —Michael Z. 2008-05-03 07:46 z
The result was Delete --JForget 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by editor after 5-day time without specifically addressing the prod concern. Article is not an encyclopedic article but rather an essay with original research/synthesis. Subject is not particularly notable or distinct and could be moved into Stereotype. Page is the original author's only edits and no pages link there. Reywas92Talk 21:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by Dlohcierekim . Unable to find anything via Google to suggest this is anything but nonsense. Dlohcierekim 21:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a WP:HOAX possibly? Gary King (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film that has a distinct lack of multiple non-trivial sources. Reading through the google hits for an hour or so, I had a very difficult time finding any source on the movie that wasn't either a blog, you-tube, or self-promotional. Trusilver 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is a last-ditch effort but would matter that I have been cast in a supporting role in a film called "I-59 South" co-starring Olivia de Havilland and Luke Flynn? The film will be on IMDB soon. The only proof I currently have are emails.Erkman27 (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:BIO basic criteria reads If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. It does not appear that the reliability of The Hindu is in question. However, the coverage in this article is not significant. The subsequently added sources include only trivial coverage. Therefore, the article, in its current state, fails to meet the criteria of WP:BIO in regard to notability. Lara❤Love 22:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD closed as keep in February but notability was never established. Sole RS coverage mentioned her fashion taste, nothing to establish notability in her profession. She exists and does a job, no evidence she passes WP:BIO TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 23:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(OUTDENT) to review: there are 4 sentences in your sources supporting the notability of this person with regard to her inclusion in wikipedia:
How does this make her notable enough to merit an entry in an encyclopedia? these are direct quotes, by the way. Protonk (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This is the existing WP article: Hema Sinha (Tamil: ஹேமா சின்ஹா) is popular in the Sun Music TV channel of South India. [1] [2] She was previously working for Raj TV but shifted to Sun Music in 2004 (which was then called SCV). Hema has hosted a few shows within the Sun Music channel but is most well known for being a video jockey for the show 'Hello Hello' (everyday except Friday, 0030-0130 MST), which features call-in audience who requests their favourite Kollywood songs.
Hema has also modelled for a variety of commercials, predominantly on the Tamil media. Hema currently does "Sooper - Dooper" , a comedy show in Sun TV.
The above article doesn’t made in OR. The stub article was created (I am not the creator) by the help of Hindu news & other ghits sources. Additionally, when we speak about a VJ/anchor, costumes, fashions and dress code are the main discussed issues. Not any books she received or award bagged. That doesn’t come to the picture. What else you want to know to endorse her notability? --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment one paper had 2 paragraphs or something of a puff piece about her looks, voice etc. That's hardly in depth coverage or even any breadth of coverage given there's only one article on her in WP:RS. Merkin's mum 10:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 01:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable contact sport. unverified and probably an WP:HOAX. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This came up for deletion about two weeks ago by an editor who opposed it on moral grounds. I voted keep, but subsequently noticed that the increased scrutiny the article was under has resulted in it being a list unable to sustain a single sourced entry. I am renominating it on that grounds. Toptomcat (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Although I will go ahead and delete the untagged articles to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, please make sure to tag all articles being considered for deletion when bundling nominations in the future. If anyone wants to try expanding the Yomi article, then feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I'll do what I can to help out. --jonny-mt 05:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page, along with other pages for members of Nightmare (band), have no significant, or valuable content. It consists of mostly trivia. --Jacob Talk 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. Lara❤Love 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable local service project by university students. Fails WP:ORG, if it would even be considered an organization, as its more of an open event. AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Lara❤Love 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails all 6 criteria for inclusion of WP:PROF, fails notability tests for non-academics as well. No significant 3rd party coverage by reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*KeepI don't know why Relato Refero is arguing so strongly against reality, but, since Relato Refero asserted that theses books are not received by scholars, I punched Medoff into JSTOR.
Results:
His books gets reviewed:
Review: Medoff's "The Deafening Silence, " Yehuda Bauer ,The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 80, No. 3/4 (Jan. - Apr., 1990), pp. 371-375 , Review: Pragmatic Idealists: Zionism in AmericaReview: Pragmatic Idealists: Zionism in America, Stuart Knee ,Reviewed work(s): Zionism and the Arabs: An American Jewish Dilemma, 1898-1948 by Rafael Medoff, The Emergence of American Zionism by Mark A. Raider , AJS Review, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1999), pp. 337-341.
Moreover:
His books are discussed in the periodic review articles commissioned by the journal "Modern Judaism," in fact, earlier this week, I inculded Deborah Lipstadt's discussion of Medoff's work in her 1990 review essay of recent work on the Holocaust in "Modern Judaism." More significantly, in 1995 "Modern Judaism" commissioned Medoff to write the review article. Recent Trends in the Historiography of Zionism: A Review Essay, by Rafael Medoff, Modern Judaism, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Feb., 1995), pp. 95-101.
Plus:
To add to my puzzlement over Relato Refero's motivations, after I saw that he had suggested this article for deletion and spent some time adding material to the article, he put up this on my account page:
An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Evidence-based.
Please refer to contributions for evidence. See block log and current autoblocks.
In sum:
Relato Refero's postign of this notice did have the effect of adding a new term to my vocabulary. But I hardly think flinging such accusations is an appropriate response to my objections to his attempt to remove this article. In fact, though adding information to Wikipedia pages when I am excited about an institution, a book, a play, or a beautiful building is fun, I don't particularly care for the argumentative, aggressive tone of some editors at Wikipedia. I suspect, moreover, that it drives people from continuing to contribute.13:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)Fan613
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. I'm sorry to bring such a long, thorough debate to such an anticlimactic end, but the discussion below presents a large number of competing, well-reasoned opinions without arriving at a definitive conclusion. --jonny-mt 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogy page for a completely non-notable Civil War soldier. The complete lack of notability makes for a very boring read, but by all means slog through it if you don't believe me. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki and delete. I think the disambig page is a good idea and will be glad to implement it once the transwiki is done. --jonny-mt 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary this is always going to be a stub so its encyclopedic possibilities are limited. Belongs in Wiktionary, where the phrase already has an entry. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, with reference to WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay, personal reflection, OR. ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is nothing more than a personal essay. It's as though somebody were given a college assignment and, instead of turning it in to the teacher, posted it here instead. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Filtering out for moths and the like, ghits return MySpace and YouTube, nothing that establishes notability. No RS coverage and a search turns up nothing at AllMusic either. Doesn't appear to meet any of WP:MUSIC's criteria. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G1, G3, G10, A1, and A7, and I'm sure I could find another few. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not a hoax, then arguably libelous content. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete G10 by user:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Have a nice day. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, unencyclopedic POV essay. Basically an attack on Amazon.com (the text was removed from that article as well). PROD removed after 4 days. Delete. MCB (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW Milk’s Favorite Cookie (Talk) 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a fictional subject with very little real-world notability. Written mostly in in-universe style. Consists almost entirely of original research. Only the final section contains anything that could be called a reliable source. I know some people hate the word, but this article is just pure fancruft. Terraxos (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC) (See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City (The Simpsons), recently deleted for a similar reason. Terraxos (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was keep. --jonny-mt 05:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article on the president of a labour union local. Currently in the news only because his local is in contract negotiations, which is his only reason for notability. Article has been a magnet for vandalism to the point that it has had to be temporarily deleted, stubbed, and now semi-protected. Risker (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect a security consulting firm involved in the Balkans that was bought out for $17.4 million to have some ghits, it doesn't apart from wiki mirrors. Searching the the alleged founder while filtering for security turns up nothing useful. Not sure if it's a hoax but there's no evidence whatsoever it's notable even accounting for typos. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to York Region District School Board--JForget 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school, google only turns up with this article, their official website and a few directory entries. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Political parties in the United States--JForget 00:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is currently POV, not that that's my reason to delete. I find it hard to imagine how it could even refrain from being a POV article with a non-encyclopedic style, however. I can't really see this article becoming much more than an opinion center for what users think are the main issues between the parties. Being that it's so subject to POV, I think it should be deleted. JamieS93 17:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. It is found to be a notable, and verifiable subject, about which independent research exists. The issue of renaming could be settled on the talkpage itself, and hasn't been discussed to consensus here yet, though there seem to be signs that the current title is preferred. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Brain Fart is not an actual psychological or neuroscience concept mcain (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a dictionary definition (albeit of a very old word) and I don't see any potential for expansion to an encyclopedia article. What else is there to say besides what it means and how it's used? Powers T 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as the nominator has withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete preferences (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 03:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable academic. Only source provided is a scant listing on a faculty page of his school. No verifiable evidence provided that Benatar meets any of the standards of WP:PROF. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable conglomeration of golf course. Only sources are primary, and no third-party sources could easily be found.
Also listing a related non-notable golf course owned by them:
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Black Kite 07:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Golf course that appears to be non-notable. I looked for third-party sources and found virtually nothing of worth. Wizardman 14:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A passing mention in a French language book about Arnhem Bridge does not confer notability for this Nazi official. Ghits are forums and other non reliable sources that simply confirm this fact. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy. AFD closed early per WP:SNOW. While there were many delete votes, userfying will leave the content available, yet out of the mainspace which is the main point of this AFD. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than another school essay User:Globalecon/Global Economics which duplicates much of the information at Blood diamond Diamond and Diamond (gemstone) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Lara❤Love 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of hate to do this since the page's author e-mailed me asking for help (apparently this is part of a class project), but I just don't see any notability per WP:BOOK. As with most books, I'm finding about eight billion sites to buy the book from, but no substantial third-party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 17:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
XBLite is an insignificant contribution to the space of BASIC languages and therefore should be removed. The user community is miniscule. For example, the Google group for XBlite, which is the main community vehicle, is only comprised of several hundred users, a very few number of which are active.
Furthermore, the purpose of the article appears to be more about advertising than anything else. 209.159.98.1 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, one local TV source, No vote F (talk) 12:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (snowball/non admin). dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ship. Creator has removed PROD, and deleted article issues tags, claiming notability established. Only 2 sources given. One is a mere directory of ships, which confers no notability, the other is a chat forum, and hence not a RS. No reliable source given for the tenuous claims to notability by association with notable events Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article would normally merit a speedy, I think, but was previously prodded and prod tag was removed, so I bring it here to AfD. The accomplishments listed in the article do not establish any notability. Starting artist, who is not notable yet. Crusio (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability criteria. No coverage in reliable sources. --Snigbrook (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Davewild (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search turns up, no city with this name. There are results for a person with the name. Maybe a hoax? Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 10:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; see also WT:VG discussion. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus that the subject satisfies notability criteria. WilliamH (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems possible that the person could be very marginally notable, but the article as it is now is pure advertising, just a list of his awards. I think it's a big NPOV problem. Not to mention it has no references. I would say it's a big enough problem we should delete it and possibly start over if we find any solid references to use. delldot talk 09:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Keith Pickering is a friend of Cleveland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There is a possibly notable event here, but not a notable person; she is clearly only notable for the manner in which she died, and thus falls foul of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. (There is no comparison to Hrant Dink, who was notable before his death). There is a possibility that this could be incorporated into an article about Brides on tour which appears to have enough written about it in reliable sources to form an article; please contact me if you wish to have the deleted content from this article to do so. Black Kite 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedied for DB bio, however given the level of contribution by users I suspect there may be ground for some discussion. The argument is either non notable biography, or notable murder for the media coverage and the charity circumstances and back story. SGGH speak! 08:06, 29 April 2008
Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased album. No sources provided, no reliable sources found. Rolling Stone has a blank placeholder[40], so does MTV[41][42]. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. -Icewedge (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. Lara❤Love 01:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a town square and doesn't appear to be a notable one in English (although that at least confirms existence) or Greek, where its existence is only confirmed in wiki mirrors. This article is nothing more than an unsourced travel guide and without evidence of notability , there's nothing with which to improve it. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The discussion below sufficiently addresses the issue of continued media raised in the nomination. --jonny-mt 03:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Started as a WP:BLP disaster which I've cleared a bit but still just an individual sentenced to death who's conviction was overturned. Currently about to start his second trial. That is all in terms of notability and while it make the news (the Austin Chronicle article is something else), he doesn't seem to be the subject of continued media interest. I don't know of any similar case other than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Choctaw Three. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Even though the keep votes are all weak, I believe Stifles remark should also be treated as a weak delete, or a keep, since his conditions, citations to ensure verifiability, is later ensured. Since the nom is neutral, I conclude the consensus here is to keep. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged A7 and deleted, however, an editor expressed concerns so I am listing the article here. No opinion from my side. Tone 06:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 16:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definition - surely more wiktionary suitable than here? asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 05:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism per WP:NEO. John Nagle (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Prod" was deleted, so we have to do this the hard way. Found on RC patrol. Google shows this term used only in a few blogs. Article close to being an attack article. Dictdef. No useful article content. --John Nagle (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable vanity-press book. Entry seems to have been created by author. Graymornings (talk) 04:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 04:28, April 30, 2008
Another article resulting from the inappropriate class project discussed at WP:ANI#Use of Wikipedia for class project (see also User:Globalecon/Global Economics). This one violates multiple sections of WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTGUIDE. Deor (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure this film meets WP:MOVIE, based on [52] and [53]. The latter is the NY times that simply mentions the film as a directory/guide. Let's see what the community thinks about this. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no reliable sources to establish notability, probably original research. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is sorely lacking context so it's not even entirely clear what the article is about. It's also completely unreferenced so verifying the content is very hard and I'm very skeptical of the overall importance of an article which, apparently, discusses various in-between-shows blurbs on Nick Jr.. Pichpich (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and Redirect to Morton-on-Swale (merge has already taken place) as per usual for primary schools and the lack of coverage to establich independent notability. Davewild (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article offers nothing in the way of notability, research, verifiable sources or encyclopedic relevance. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Lara❤Love 17:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horribly written, unsourced article about a non-notable school. Google doesn't reveal anything convincing. — Wenli (reply here) 02:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 09:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - boldly closing early per the snowball clause - Peripitus (Talk) 10:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Particularly Notable WP:BIO Llamabr (talk) 19:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Appears to be NN. Yet again, IMDB cannot be used as a RS. Black Kite 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another article (which seems autobiographical) with only YouTube and MySpace as a resource. Including the comment in the edit summary for creation, this meets WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:MUSIC. Does not seem to be notable. Also a contested PROD. Soxred93 (u t) 02:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HIS IMDb.com page is listed there as well as his Official MySpace page.
Here is the LINK TO HIS OFFICIAL WEBSITE TOO! JESSE KOZEL There is no reason to delete him. He has MANY roles this year coming out and he is an actor people are TALKING ABOUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by USpanish (talk • contribs) 03:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Essentially a G4, as the content is functionally identical to the previously deleted content, and no new claims of notability are made. Black Kite 07:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable Facebook application. Please see the other two discussions for details.
The result was Keep based on sourcing provided in this discussion Gnangarra 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF and does not give any evidence with regards to notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_on_neologisms Oore (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of featured music videos on BET's 106 & Park show. The show itself is not based on any kind of sales or airplay data; this seems to go against WP:NOT#IINFO and just basically is not encyclopedic. Additionally, a similar article listing 106 & Park videos was deleted per AfD several months ago. All of this was in the main 106 & Park article but was removed, only to have an editor copy it and move it to this new page. There is no way to source any of this prior to 2007 (the show started well before then), and as it is a daily show, these tables and the article itself has nowhere to go but huge. Conversation on the main 106 & Park talk page was questioning the inclusion of this info there before I removed it and everything here is a direct copy/paste of the source that is listed at the bottom of the article. - eo (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with September 11, 2001 attack memorials and services. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By far the shortest, least informative and least useful of the 9/11-related articles that are listed on the template on all the pages. Although it was a major event I don't find usefulness on articles about anniversaries of certain events. Also, red links and citations for lack of sourcing are abound. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Just a local gaming group, the "reliable source" article makes it quite clear how local. The "700+" Google hits for the convention come down to just about 30 relevant hits - mostly forums and blogs - when English results only are requested (the phrase is common, and irrelevant, in Italian). Black Kite 07:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization (120 members), with just one local newspaper article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A 100% WP:OR literary concept. JuJube (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The current contents are badly written and unsourced; they should not be merged in this state as this would degrade the quality of the target article. Sandstein (talk) 21:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to assert notability, no sources to justify text and google search for "Tanegashima knife" shows two hits, both wikipedia, and "Tanegashima knives" shows 17, none of which are evidence of coverage in secondary sources or any coverage besides sales sites. WLU (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, copyvio. - Bobet 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress, a quick IMDB search does bring up a few screen credits, but most of them are small NN one-shot appearances, none of which satisfy WP:BIO. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lara❤Love 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable. Article has no sources and is mostly original research. The article is about a logo for Creem, which contains the same image and already contains similar information. Ward3001 (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Discounting some poorly argued opinions, of which three were for "merge" and two for "delete" (Dorftrottel, lack of notability is not a criterium for speedy deletion), contributors have overwhelmingly determined that this thinly sourced detail of an (albeit very notable) fictional universe should not have an article of its own. They have also by a ratio of roughly two to one determined that the content should not even be merged. That's probably close enough to allow for a brief mention (to the effect of a few sentences or a paragraph) of this subject in an appropriate article. Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable plot gimmick/special effect. Single citation is to unreliable source. Original research ("a single powerful blast may be sufficient to kill a person instantly") and plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability out of a sales report. No sources. Personal web-site claims that he is constantly "ranked #1 broker Downtown" but there are few verifiable sources that back this. seicer | talk | contribs 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge all to Edea (musical group). Will do it now. Neıl ☎ 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. I am nominating for deletion because of the following line in WP:MUSIC: "Members of notable bands are not given individual articles unless they have demonstrated notability for activity independent of the band." Tavix (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - WP:SNOW applies. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporate holiday. No references. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
