The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently invented poetry form. Has received a little attention because it was used as the basis of a competition on a poetry website. But I submit that it is not yet notable enough for an article here. Especially since the author of the article could not be bothered to provide references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), sources have shown that the subject is notable. Paragon12321 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the notability criteria for musicians given at WP:MUSIC. Donald Albury 23:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dance. WP:MADEUP Rob Banzai (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a fairly unknown and new style of dancing, but if you would ask some people from the festival at Motovun, they would know about it. I think it would be unfair for these people to consider it to be a non-existing dance. This is all my humble opinion though, and I do not know much about Wikipedia's policy of articles right to exist, but I ask you to give this one article at least a chance, and see if other people will recognize it and deepen this article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamaneer (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep, Nom withdawn. Lenticel (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. This looks like an obvious hoax, but I hate doing cross-cultural CSD's-- too easy to make a mistake. If this turns into a pile-on, don't-be an-idiot-type "keep" let me know and I'll withdraw. But I just can't believe what I'm reading here. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this creature is indeed a strange one, it truely does exist in Japanese Folklore...
http://squeep.com/~shoes/mizuki/mizukishirime.jpg
I've asked the Mythology taskforce of WikiProject Japan group to approve this article...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Mythology —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happysmack (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Cheers![reply]
Chris aka HappySmack
This creature exists on the the Japanese Wiki page
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%81%AE%E3%81%A3%E3%81%BA%E3%82%89%E3%81%BC%E3%81%86
It is the last creature mentioned: 尻目(しりめ) phonetically pronounced shi-ri-me
尻 is the kanji for 'rear'(shiri)
目is the kanji for 'eye' (me)
Here is a picture drawn by poet Yaso Buson:
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Buson_Nopperabo.jpg
These entries are properly annotated with reliable sources
The AfD was added because of suspicion of being a hoax and vandalism.
These references should be enough to show that this entry is neither.
To consider this a hoax and CSD would be in contention of their work
Kindly withdraw AfD tag
Thank you!
Chris
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition of an Indian name. The article has been tagged for notability since February. Therefore it fails WP:DICTIONARY, WP:N & WP:V. Tavix (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No confirmed release date, no confirmed title, no definitive confirmation of the album by the record label. Article is pure speculation, based on those factors, which violates WP:CRYSTAL Winger84 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 20:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, due to lack of references to establish notability. I'm going to redirect the article to Lisburn as a viable search term. Contact me you'd like to do a merge there. lifebaka++ 12:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a non-notable church in Northern Ireland. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. The only reference links to the churches offical website and a check for sources found that most of them are databases listing just about every church in the region. Also, the current article is very confusing and is hard to read. Tavix (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 16:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Article on clone "based in spirit" on Elite, lacks a claim to notability and lacks significant secondary references. A single notable source with a brief mention does not satisfy WP:N Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete — I could not find any, either. MuZemike (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice to creating an encyclopedic article on this subject. PhilKnight (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:NOT#HOWTO KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Since a lot of the debate depended on the defluffing and it has just recently occurred, it may be better to renom rather than relist. Wizardman 01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an essay of sorts, or failing that, some sort of advertisement. It seems to be a WP:COATRACK of sorts for Peter Gleick; it contains a great deal of WP:OR. The larger issue is that there's nothing here that seems encyclopedic. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as original research. Vquex (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unreferenced, un-sourced (I have tried to find some sources myself (and failed)), un-notable (per Wikipedia:Notability), orphaned but for a very similar page, and is riddled with typos and grammar mistakes CharltonTilliDieTalk/Contribs 18:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Total neologism, I would go so far as to call it made up. Google had never heard the term. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Last two opinions discounted as unsigned. Sandstein 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the appearances of the planet in various Star Wars media, thus repeating those articles plot sections. It is trivial, duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also
The result was Delete. Gazimoff 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is this rag-tag compilation of happenings worthy of a page? Some publication once grouped them as "Dark Night Curse." As far as I am concerned, I would think this is not notable. Is it? Stijndon (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - Contributors couldn't agree on whether the available sources are independent and/or demonstrate the notability of the subject. Without wishing to prejudice the future of this article, I suggest that the interested editors consider merging this article with Cloud City. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of plot sections of various Star Wars articles. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also
<-- I'm not sure what ad hominem you are referring to, Reyk, but I think you both can safely withdraw from this discussion as having made your points. You don't need to argue until you convince the other - you do not have an audience merely of one. Avruch T 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Adam Ficek. --jonny-mt 15:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a man, his guitar and his Myspace page. I don't think this little side project should have it's own article. What there is to be said about "Roses Kings Castles" can be said in the article about Adam Ficek. (However, I'm not even sure if HE is notable enough in his own right for an own article). Malfacteur (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was delete. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter. Sandstein 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a huge repetition of the plot sections of various Star Wars articles plot sections. IT is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unsourced —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per an apparent WP:HEY. --jonny-mt 15:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article fails to explain why this podcast out of so many thousands, is notable. No mention of awards or other honors that might establish it's notability. Zero 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unsourced. If this is released as a single, recreate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Redirecting for now since article's unsourced, but content's there. Wizardman 01:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Tech 2.0 (The Show). The pograms are not notable enough to warrant separate articles. Suggesting merger to the current name ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Gazimoff 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC as it is not a notable song. Tavix (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
voice actor with but one credit to her name, therefore does appear to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced promotional article for non-notable local racing simulator league. Royalbroil 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was non-admin closure as duplicate discussion already exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRIO - Publishing Made Simple. Gr1st (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publishing company. References deal more with RAVEN magazine than the company itself and article is mostly advertising. TN‑X-Man 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted G3 as obvious hoax by User:Orangemike; for starters Rangers won the 2002-03 SPL. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:EPISODE: "The main purpose of plot summaries is to provide context for the rest of the information." This is entirely plot summary, apart from an actual transcript of the dialogue. Not material for an encyclopedia - and isn't the transcript a copyvio? JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. If he plays for West Ham, drop me a note on my talk page and I'll restore the article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD stating he's played in for West Ham in an "MLS All-Star game" - however this is not a competitive game and nothing more than another pre-season friendly to West Ham. Has not played for another club in a competitive league or competition so he fails notability at WP:ATHLETE --Jimbo[online] 20:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No references, listing-only and OR with no assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure Wikipedia is for the collection of uncommon Indian names. Ged UK (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:CRYSTAL, there are no reputable sources stating that this film is in production or being written KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. PhilKnight (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
may not meet WP:N KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not very notable Scottish football club, playing in a not notable league. All references are to club's own website except one to another club in the same league's, and one to a local newspaper (which only mentions them in a fixture list). пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a2, author has been asked to post in English. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Material not in English KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not hoax, please allow two day grace to complete article to Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madevery (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 01:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unsourced WP:BLP, some claims are made to international awards but I cannot reliably confirm them. RFerreira (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fábio Pereira da Silva. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown number of appearances for Fluminense (if any). He is currently listed in MUFC Reserves.
He fails WP Footy notability, as friendly matches do not count. Also, does not pass WP:ATHLETE. – LATICS talk 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable neologism. Seems to only be used by one person in this context after a quick google trawl. Ged UK (talk) 19:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The term "wilderness folk" is important as per the fact that it is a sub-genre of folk. There are several other bands using the "wilderness folk" tag as well. As an artist I feel this information should be available for when someone hears the term and is looking for a definition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cweecwee13 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice to recreation once he starts playing in the top league. PhilKnight (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who declined speedy A7 on this one stated that it was a borderline case. Aussie Rules footballer who sounds promising, but he is not there yet. The WAFL is the equivalent of AAA baseball in the US.
The result was delete. It's been a week with no new sourcing, and the supplied sources are iffy. There isn't a strong consensus to delete, but without the one event of the RAVEN controversy, it would be speedied as promotional.
Article about a company called BRIO publishing. Even after reading it several times i still cannot judge if this is a good, or a bad article. I am not fully assured that the article subject is notable, and the article has a self-published advertorial feeling. At the same time the referencing seems in order, and the article seems to obey WP:NPOV guidelines more or less. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. See below. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a non-notable Scottish church. There is nothing significant about this church that would make it more notable than the billions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Tavix (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased linux distro with little to no external media coverage. ffm 18:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only in alpha or beta stage. Mentioned only in forums and Wikipedia mirrors. The associated website appears to have been down for quite some time. It is not apparent whether it's still being developed. Notability can not be established. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Martin Riley has never competed in a fully professional league, nor has he played a first-team game for a professional club. He is currently on a short-term contract with a club who do not play in a professional league. The article gives no reason to suggest that he may be notable in a manner that conforms to established policy. Rje (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography; no notability shown. Fails WP:BLP. triwbe (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was
Per in-world. The article has no cites nor any references. The article is unverifiable and therefore meets the criteria for deletion. This article should either be deleted or at least merge it into Fable. Gears of War 2 18:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't assert notability, and the only reference is a small mention in a timeline of Duval. Google returns little promising hits. Leonard(Bloom) 18:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: were no valid CSD criteria, but there's snow in August. TravellingCari 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails because Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. triwbe (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus defaulting to keep, disagreement here on whether this merits an article or not but discussion was leaning towards keep after evidence was found of it charting. Davewild (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This track is non-notable on its own -- I redirected it to the album title but that was reverted by another editor. Should be deleted or consensus reached as to redirect. ukexpat (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is an un-sourced mash of original research and speculation. It's likely unsalvageable, and should be deleted. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Approve of rename as well, less POV. Keeper ǀ 76 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was allegedly created as a content and POV fork of John Edwards, related to a recent controversy in which it has been claimed that he fathered a love child. The article was speedily deleted, but related discussion here seems to be against the idea of the speedy deletion; I myself agree, especially (as was noted in the ANI discussion) because a speedy tag was removed before the article was speedied. Personally, I believe that the article is giving undue weight to the subject, and therefore deserves deletion; I have recreated it just now simply because I believe it deserves a discussion here at AFD. Nyttend (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little thought experiment - let us pretend that we are looking back from 25 years later and everyone agrees that this marked the end of Edward's political career. How much material would belong in the John Edwards article in those circumstances? Probably no more than one or two paragraphs, because what he actually did during his career would need to be covered also, and we wouldn't want to unbalance the main biography. Additional coverage about the mess would belong in a sub article. This projection is comparable to how the Lewinsky scandal is handled in Bill Clinton. If no matter how important this becomes, we wouldn't put significantly more in John Edwards than was already there when Kelly wrote this page, than the issues we need to handle definitely do not include it being a POV fork. As one of the admins who is monitoring John Edwards (and the latest to use my tools on the main biography), I'm reasonably well aware of the consensus there (which continues to shift to fine tune the paragraph as more sources become available - just as it should). I'm also highly aware that new editors will probably be back in a couple days (when the current protection period ends) trying to get more material added. Kelly was attempting to get ahead of that forthcoming problem and wrote an article that if it had a POV problem was only going to far towards "this story matters". (I.e., it was neither an attack page nor unsourced, though bits might have needed to be edited to be more succinct.) Kelly definitely does not deserve any opprobium for his/her writing this article.
As to whether or not now is the time for this article, I've long been an occasional advocate for taking WP:NOT#NEWS a lot more seriously than we do. (I think if someone were to propose adding that to the policy now the community would reject it, because the evidence is that the community largely ignores it and writes articles whenever a major news story occurs.) So I'd be happier if we now had a Wikinews article, and waited a while before we started a Wikipedia article, possibly just keeping a soft-redirect to wikinews at a reasonable title. Assuming this doesn't linger on - and it might, depending on whether or not any of the mainstream news sources decided to do investigative journalism the way they did years ago and what such hypothetical investigations might find - then in a few months we'll be able to have better encyclopedic perspective. I refuse to predict whether the main story will be about how the media and blogosphere handled this, the substance of the allegations, or something else we have yet to identify. And until we know the main storyline, we are just to close to the event to know how to handle it. So my preferred outcome would be to have a wikinews article instead, and adopt a temporary policy of just waiting a few months here. But if this comes to DRV for a straight up/down decision, I'll have to opine based on those two options. GRBerry 02:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep. John254 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious vanity violation, proof is in the edit comments left in the history. I also recommend we do NOT move the GFDL-released image into commons, but delete it in good faith that the author of the work/uploader was likely unfamiliar with GFDL and would not appreciate finding his work used for a commercial purpose (click here). ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator
The result was nomination withdrawn. Keep votes make perfect sense. Wizardman 11:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has a lot of issues, including failing WP:V. The fact that it's an autobiography pushes me to AfD. Wizardman 15:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Clear case of snow. Article needs some improvement, but doesn't require deletion to address issues.. TravellingCari 01:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references to prove notability. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
offer also , i would say as an offer to keep - i will offer to write a more complete bio as long as the afd is nulled. -- Imajes (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See the concurrent AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWBA Sample Products for essentially similar arguments against retention of this article. Entirely original research, no references that are not self-generated (the article's author is also the author of the only reference, which is self-published and thus confers no notability), WP:SPAM, WP:FRINGE. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN criminal... Article claims him to be a "successful and well-known" burglar, but article does not mention much in the way of notability (other than a couple robberies), and is unsourced. There are no G-news hits (and very few G-hits) for "Samuel Nelo". There are a couple G-news hits that list the name "Sorecho Nalo A.K.A. Sam Nelo", but these appear to be brief mentions in court paperwork. Does not seem to pass notability concerns... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is pure fancruft. It has no good references to exert notability because they are all primary sources. The characters that need to be described are already amply covered here. Artichoker[talk] 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin closure: keep; withdrawn by monimee. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC even admitting that it has not charted; NN song - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V and WP:BIO as well. Wizardman 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Four contributors were satisfied that notability was demonstrated, one was surprised that more sources had not been added, and one did not accept that the sources demonstrated notability. The consensus was that this is a notable subject. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question since May '07, fails WP:V as well. Wizardman 14:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:N. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted (CSD G7) by Edgar181. Non-admin closure. Cliff smith talk 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements. Could not locate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I had originally nominated the article for speedy deletion but initial contributor stated he was actively working on the article including adding sourcing, so I self-reverted but expressly reserved the right to nominate at AfD if notability assertion was not provided. He has not been back since. --Clubjuggle T/C 14:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. A "supergroup" composed solely of artists signed to the supergroup's label, none of whom pass WP:MUSIC other than by virtue of being members of this group which is notable because of those same members. A walled garden. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Not subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable, failed previous AfD, still fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not assert the notability of its subject and is an extensive plot summary. The article is written in a manner to advertise the web-show(?) and is entirely based on primary source (the show itself). Whether the subject is notable or not, the article in its current state is not salvageable. --Farix (Talk) 14:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, sources have been found to meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any qualifications to make me believe that this book passes WP:NB. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (A7). --MCB (talk) 06:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to assert notability of this game designer. In addition, all links lead to (copyright infringing) software download site. Addionne (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unsourced, unverifiable and fails to assert notability in any way. The only link is a broken one, and the things that come up in a search are forums and such. Addionne (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little context, no assertion of why this a notable channel, no references, no ghits. Failed ((prod2)). Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to merely mention that this company exists and provides links to pages that the company provides services for. Looks like Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Stijndon (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, non-notable game by non-notable developer. Very few G-hits that are not user-generated content sites or fansites and zero G-archive hits that I could find. Addionne (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep, disagreement over whether this is a WP:CRYSTAL violation at this stage. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is entirely a WP:CRYSTAL violation and is composed almost entirely of rumors. Is not yet notable per WP:MUSIC#Albums, as the album title, release date, and track list have not been officially released by the label. Fails WP:HAMMER. PROD for these reasons contested, saying that confirmation by the label is forthcoming; if this does happen during this AfD, I will be happy to withdraw. lifebaka++ 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete WaveDancers and BMP, since it's unsourced there's nothing to merge. No consensus on Ditrich because I could hardly tell what the opinion was. May be renommed separately if desired. Wizardman 01:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. This is part of a group of articles created by an account named after an individual involved, User:Jozefszekeres, seemingly with promotional intent. Sticky Parkin 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they're other non-notable promotional efforts by this account, of which two similar articles have been speedy deleted as blatant advertising:
The result was Keep, there are plenty of suggestions for how the article should be improved but there is a weak consensus that this is an appropriate article is some form. Davewild (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At it's last deletion debate, it was proposed that the article be trimmed down and references given. Little of either has been actioned, the article remains rather bloated and free of all but a handful of references. Other than that, I'm not sure what it does for our understanding of Doctor Who, or what role it fulfils on Wikipedia where other fan based wikis exist. The article lists people who have been described as celebrities (by who?) or notable else where (in which case, what does it have to do with Doctor Who?). If it described actors and actresses who used Doctor Who as a springboard for later fame, or where a guest star created an episode or story of note, I might see the point. Otherwise, it seems to serve no purpose when cast lists have been created on the individual pages for Doctor Who stories. Alastairward (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice to recreation. PhilKnight (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously prod'd, notice removed by article creator. Seems to be amalgamation of original research designed to promote book by author with very similar name to that of article creator. Hunting dog (talk) 13:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page has no verifiable, notable sources, and has been tagged as such since May 2008 Braindigitalis (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, in the light of the late found sources, it is found notable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced book by author that doesn't even have her own article. If the author doesn't have an article, why should the book? Also fails WP:N with no reliable sources. Closest thing to a source I could find was a review.(EDIT)Wiki software blocked it as a spam link. Not sure if it is, but I had to unlink it. If you want me to send you the link, leave me a message on my talk page. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising, part of group of related articles. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the notion of jazz-filled nights and "cheap eats" sound wonderful, we have to acknowledge that this Australian venue does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards and appears to fail WP:ORG. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted (G7) at author's request. Papa November (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD by IP user with no explantion as to why. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 12:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck you
The result was Delete, not really speedy since it was relisted but quite evidently snow.. TravellingCari 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Company is notable enough to pass CSD, however, obvious COI, I think this should be deleted, but recerated by someone who is not with the company Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. WP:COI is the issue for me here - it is essentially promotional. --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, orphaned article about what appears to be a local NYC radio show which also features some podcasted content. Having difficulty finding any references via Google News. No mention of syndication or anything else that would help the case of notability on official website. Claims of firsts in article are also unreferenced and may be original research. Is this show notable? Rtphokie (talk) 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G12 - copyright violation) by Peripitus. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already covered at Intention (criminal). Merge good content from this article then delete? —CycloneNimrodT@lk? 11:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (non-admin closure); notability remains contentious. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this page as the Play It Again Sam (record label) page was making confusion mixing information about the group (distributor) and the label (I still have to clean the label page) . - siouxsy 16:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails notability requirement for bands - local "party" band for which I could not find "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable" Majorclanger (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a non-notable breakfast radio program, possibly station-produced spam. Grahame (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Dalgety Bay. Found no valid content to merge. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, no secondary sources and I think we're being trolled by the user. See [40], regardless, I'll let you all handle it. Here is a link to his other nom for deletion [41] and then there's this [42]. Drunken Pirate (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), I nominated this article, but there seems to be a clear consensus to keep, and I am convinced by the arguments presented. Slashme (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indie film released in 2008, hasn't won any prizes. Many reviews online, but I don't see how that makes it notable. Slashme (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 01:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN. PROD contested by author. Ian¹³/t 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Jackson's Submission Fighting, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable art tagged for 2 years for sources, claims lots of notable fighters but no sources. Nate1481(t/c) 10:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a debut album that has not yet charted, on a label that is still redlinked. Surely not yet notable. Slashme (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article which does not assert notabilty -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, sources have been added to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet the notability guideline for WP:WEB. Unsourced since creation, with the exception (if you can call it a published source) of embedded external links to YouTube and sites dedicated to the Mobile Leprechaun that were prompted by the YouTube video. Altairisfartalk 09:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete*Keep See Dravecky's post. Drunken Pirate (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A targetted Google for either the character or the actor produce no results. Hoax? ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 08:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The last AfD closed two months ago, and I can't see consensus changing that fast, especially given that the previous AfD was a rather clear keep. Most, if not all, of the nominator's cited problems can easily be fixed without bringing the deletion hammer down. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All this issues from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American patriotic music still exist fails WP:OR, WP:NPOV,WP:Cite ,WP:SYN and WP:V .Their has only been 4 [45] non tagging edits to the text since the last AFD. The article was kept to give a chance for improvement this has not occurred Gnevin (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this. Some say it's not duplicating, some say it is, others still say that's a good thing. I'd encourage a discussion on the article talk pages in regards to a merge or redirection, but that's largely outside the scope of AfD since it doesn't involve the big red button. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forks existing articles Counties of the United Kingdom and List of counties of the United Kingdom. Section 2 is a recreation of List of British Traditional Counties (Deleted by AFD here). All other information is already contained in other articles about local government in the United Kingdom and presented more coherently. MRSC • Talk 07:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Deductive reasoning. PhilKnight (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inscrutable stub that seems to be an essay/neologism/original research. The only reference is an equally impenetrable (to me, at least) paper by one Chiara Carlino, who I believe to be the article's creator: User:C Chiara. Others raised the same concerns about this article back in 2007. Reyk YO! 07:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that this list is not notable and without reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable list. No sources at all. It could all be made up for all I know. Looks like original research. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 August 2008
I have removed the sources because one does not mention either offensive while the other mentions them in list-form by name only. Essentially the article is a synthesis of the two earlier-edited separate articles. In that line of thinking all consecutive offensives can be grouped into one big European offensives of the Second World War or US Army campaigns in France, or Germany campaigns of World War II, however, that is why there are divisions in military history such as Theaters, Military campaigns, operations, etc. The offensives in question had completely different objectives, and although carried out by the same Front in same geographic area, one was directed south-west, while the other, directed north-west separated by the 120km section of front which was the Siege of Breslau. To even suggest that these operations were related means never having to have looked at a map--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin's decision to delay the push towards Berlin from February to April has been a subject of some controversy among both the Soviet generals and military historians, with one side arguing that the Soviets had a chance of securing Berlin much quicker and with much lower losses in February, and the other arguing that the danger of leaving large German formations on the flanks could have resulted in a succesfull German counterattack and prolonged the war further.
Why? Well because Piotrus was forever "tweaking" Danzig, and hence the East Pomeranian Offensive
The main English sources for these offensives (other than memoirs of the participants) are still Duffy and Glantz, neither of whom make any use of the concept of the 'Silesian Offensives' as far as I'm aware. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches turn up no substantive sources for this business—just a Myspace page, other social-networking pages, and some mentions by exhibiting artists. I can't verify the claimed connection with an art seller of the 1950s (the Google Books hits for an older business are for a Galerie Chappe-Laurier, in Toulouse rather than Paris). Seems to fail WP:N. Deor (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, snow, for all the reasons put forth below. There's no evidence it's been made or will soon be. No prejudice against re-creation when/if it happens. TravellingCari 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested, so here we are. No evidence of being in production, so doesn't meet WP:NFF. Shawisland (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Alien Shooter: Vengeance, delete Alien Shooter and Zombie Shooter. If I'm reading this right, it looks as though Vengeance is sourced enough to either be considered notable or scrutinized on its own merits (and as such, I'd ask that if an AfD is opened for that article within the next couple days, it not be procedurally closed), but the other two don't have enough present to keep at this time. Next time, please consider separate AfD's. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced article about an independently developed computer game. Google chucks up a fair few hits, but these all seem to be download mirrors or other unreliable sources.
I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a sequel to the above, and suffers from the same problems.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason given on why this house is notable. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with good ol' Sticky Parkin. So now that everyone is in agreement, when will the marked for deletion tab at the top be removed? Joshuadelung (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Joshuadelung[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists of a list of advertisements for non-notable conventions; list will never be complete. Somno (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I find that there is essentially no support for the administrative deletion of this article, no consensus for the merger of the content, and that editors supporting retention of the article persuasively argue that the proposed merger would give undue weight to the events in our biography of Laura Bush, thereby violating our biographies of living persons policy (which does not apply to Michael Dutton Douglas himself, as he as been deceased for over four decades). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event states that "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography may be unwarranted", but does not mandate that this result be imposed, absent some consensus to do so. John254 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
This article survived a deletion debate in August 2005. This, however, was before the Seigenthaler incident significantly changed Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy. Even in the case of dead people notability criteria apply, specifically WP:BIO1E. This individual should certainly be mentioned in the Laura Bush article, but under current policy there is no way he can have his own article. Lampman (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 16:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research of an article. Not a reference in sight that would make anything in the article verifiable. Tavix (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (A7 - Bio that fails to indicate importance/significance of a real person) by Happyme22. Recreated prior to this closing, and deleted (A7) by Acroterion. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try and ignore the fact that chunks of this are copied from the woman's blog - permission would certainly be given. Try and ignore the evangelical tone. Simple question: is she notable? Sgroupace (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a planned film, so per the notability guidelines for future films, the article does not yet warrant existence. Looks like filming is scheduled to begin in early 2009, though the actual start of filming is never guaranteed. Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Movie theater with no notability or reason why it warrants a Wikipedia entry.--Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
re:deletion This article should not be deleted... There are only two articles on Karachi's Movie theatres/Cinemas/Cineplex, i.e. Bambino Cinema and Universe Cineplex. There are still many movie theatres working in Karachi such Prince Cinema, Capri, Nishat, Karachi Cineplex, Star Cinema, Lyric, Lyric 2, Princess, etc., and I believe more articles should be created on these movie theatres, which would definitely be of readers' interests. I agree that more material are required to be added in this article.--Plutonics (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn per recent edits. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 09:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A ((hangon)) template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. No apparent notability. Original research. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included twelve references, most of them are from google books, including historical and social, institutional uses of the soup. This includes its being included in Mrs Beeton's Book of Household Management. I hope you all take another look at the article, and realise it's now as notable as any other food for which we have a stub, in fact far more than many because of its historical use and discussion for social welfare purposes and so on. Sticky Parkin 00:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no indication of notability as per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE as a post-production supervisor. Google search for "Chantal Feghali" does not bring up any significant mentions of the name, only the usual imdb- and Amazon-type listings. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 00:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content, and WP:SNOW per below. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A ((hangon)) template on this article has been interpreted as an opposition to a prod. Neologism with no asserted notability, apparently used only within a video game. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as vandalism. ... discospinster talk 01:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dune bears? Sending to AFD as a less-then-obvious-but-maybe-it-is hoax. Bears in deserts?? Not likely. Three paper sources cited. Google sources not found. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a hygiene station is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The only external link is a German website so I don't know how reliable it is. Tavix (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by Athaenara, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable band. The only sources are things like myspace and the official website. Reyk YO! 00:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as he meets WP:ATHLETE. This is an unambiguous confirmation that he played for FCK. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having appeared to never play in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unnotable and unverifiable Sarangi maker. Notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To answer question of whether he is notable, we need to look at what Turkish leagues are professional. He seems to have appeared for a few Turkish second and third league teams according to [99]; possibly even first league depending on timing. Nfitz (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if we want to follow WP:Athlete, Turkish_football_league_system shows that 2nd and 3rd Turkish leagues are distinct from amateur leagues. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete There is some question about whether WP:ATHLETE applies to horses, but the consensus here is that this horse is not notable. (non-admin) SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
does not warrant a Wikipedia article. The horse has won only three minor races, non of which are important races and none are even a Stakes race. It seems more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as relisting garnered only one more keep and no others. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is a cast of characters on a defunct show. I don't know how notable the show itself was and there are no references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article about a segment in a show on a cable channel. No assertion of what is supposed to be important about it. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, SNOW close, as Pete says not something to waste much time on. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-like article completely based upon one person's own interpretation, but one that might be edited into a quality article. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]