The result was Merge/Redirect to List of The Bill characters. I'll perform the redirect, anyone interested in merging can use the article's history. (Non-admin closure) --Explodicle (T/C) 17:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character Truckerr (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete A7 (group): Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/company/etc by User:SatyrTN. (non-admin closure) AmaltheaTalk 17:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A band without a recording contract, only notable because is was a side project of a minor television actor, the main coverage of which is about how she was hit by a train at a level crossing. Wongm (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources found for this album. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((future-album))
tag. Until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future album, early information about it should be in the artist's article only, not in a separate article about the unreleased album.".The result was Delete --JForget 23:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined a speedy request because I felt it at least had assertions of notability, but it's hard to assess them without any sources verifying if, for example, any of the films or roles played are significant, or whether the actor played minor roles in nn films. Some sourcing would really help clear this up. Dweller (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to be notable; no reliable sources —teb728 t c 22:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G3 by Tanthalas39 , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for non-notability. No google return hits at all. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3 pure vandalism. Report on users actions has been left for AIAV to handle.Report included below. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thedarkness2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - actions evidently indicate a vandalism only account, account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. User received no warnings, but his vandalism campaign is so wide that i will not even get into that. User created and altered several article to include himself as being the most important developer, publisher er all.
user then created The Darkness 2 (video_game), mostly a copyover from the first darkness page, again with subtle changed to hide the copy, and again listing him as the main person. After that the user created an article on the company (Which was a redlink) luckily failed to make it convincing, by adding himself as being 13 year old. Im cleaning the mess he made up now, could take a while though.. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Twinkle blew this one up (and thanks, TPH!). Anyway, non-notable local duo doing covers of other bands' stuff, completely fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. Only 15 G-hits for the band name plus the surnames of the (equally unremarkable) duo, those hits being - as ever - their own web pages, Myspace pages, personal blogs, Youtube, Facebook and this article. Sourced only to their own webpages, and a cut-and-paste of those pages to boot - the article reads like a band brochure. Nothing in general release, no tours, no airplay, and I'll be filing AfDs on the duo's individual articles as well. Created by an SPA whose sole edits are related to this band. RGTraynor 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom for User:RGTraynor, apparently Twinkle goofed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as blatant advertising. The growing consensus here is also clear. Kevin (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unreleased youtube video, fails WP:N among others. See this diff for creator's comment about sources. ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep due to improvements to the article since nomination. If there is a desire to merge this elsewhere, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like something that belongs in a pickup-artist guide. It features over-analysis of a very lightweight subject as if it were drawn from a work of satire or that someone just wanted to see how often they could work the word "cockblock" into an article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; prior AfD is relevant, but contains only a nomination and one comment, so I hesitate to consider it strongly binding. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 02:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non notable student magazine, with the only claim to notability being that it is the only magazine created ny undergraduate students. No reliable sourcing as well (Self-published or biased) Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete par being the nominator Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((underconstruction))
a chance, but after reading the authors assertion of notability on Talk:The Gadfly (Philosophy Magazine) I'm afraid that this topic will never pass WP:NOTE, barring some new significant coverage. Campus magazines and blogs just aren't enough, leaving only this. --AmaltheaTalk 11:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]Delete unless independent third party sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presented as though it were a generic name for a type of computer program. As far as I can tell, the only usage for the word is the name of a non-notable company. Sgroupace (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Daisy Turner. Sandstein 06:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting biographical entry, and probably an interesting man too, but the only references for this are two local histories. These may well be reliable, but two smalltown sources aren't enough to demonstrate notability: otherwise, every person of much of any prominence in any community (for example, every local politician) would be notable. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: please note that there has been canvassing in favor of keeping this article by Hmose. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Religious person cited in a website related to a notable religion. Other than this reference, there is no reason to believe this person to be notable. Also, reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, though noting the nomination does not appear to have been made in bad faith (as was alleged). – Luna Santin (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable television episode from Masters of Horror. Fails all notability requirements for having a stand alone episode article (WP:EPISODE, WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT, WP:MOSTV. The only content is an excessive long plot summary (863 words) and some unsourced material about its origins. Originally redirected to List of Masters of Horror episodes as per guidelines, however was twice reverted as vandalism, then a third time under the claim that this is a film not a television episode. It has never aired separately, is less than an hour in length, and was created specifically to be an episode of this television series. The article full considers it an episode as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Deleted as WP:CSD#A7 by User:Fuhghettaboutit. Non-admin close. Reyk YO! 01:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject asserts no notability to be an encyclopedic entry. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both as neither pass WP:ATHLETE. Leave me a note if they make their debuts, and I'll restore them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, reason being as the football season starts in a few weeks and so the player might play, this is crystal ballery. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully professional league / competition. --Jimbo[online] 19:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating Andrew Boyce for the exact same reason.
The result was no consensus/keep. Batch nominations can be problematic, if users strongly support the inclusion of certain pages and do not comment significantly on others; it may be appropriate to nominate some of these pages individually in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A huge walled garden of unsourced band articles, some of which have already been tagged with ((unreferenced)) and/or ((notability)). Even though the main article asserts that these bands and releases are all "underground", I still can't verify so much that they even exist, outside of unreliable sources such as MySpace and Last.fm. As a result, I believe that these acts and their albums (excepting one demo which I prodded) fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No clear consensus to merge, but that may continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A critical part of our extensive encyclopedic treatment of NJ traffic circles? How 'bout WP:N-failing, defunct, incidental road feature? Eusebeus (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC) *Alternatively, editors may wish to consider the merits of merge & redirect to List of traffic circles in New Jersey.[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 03:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Keeper ǀ 76 20:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable religious organization. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Destiny's Child. --jonny-mt 02:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This band fails WP:MUSIC. They released no albums, split years ago and return no relevent G-hits (aside from links to Wikipedia). for "Anjel", for "Anjel" + "music", for "Anjel" + "band". Anjel's only claim to notability is the fact that two of its members were former members of Destiny's Child. Information about Anjel would be better included in the bios for these members and Destiny's Child. The band itself doesn't warrant an article. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 18:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If ever I saw an "indiscernible or unclassifiable topic", this is it. I've read this very carefully multiple times. I've also read it's "parent" article, and attempted to make sense of the single alleged reference. Having done so, I am no closer to understanding what on earth this article is about, and exactly why it warrants a Wikipedia page. From what I can make out, it appears to be an element of some kind on wannabe-Scientology website, or possibly part of a particularly odd hoax (nothing seems quite clear as to exactly what this is). Whatever it is, I don't see why we need a page on it and see no possible way to expand it. – iridescent 15:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The two last "keep" opinions do not address the sourcing problems that are raised in the nomination, and are discounted. Sandstein 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A decades old hoax that appears not to have garnered much if any independent notice. Notability is not temporary, of course, but I cannot find any evidence that it had any when it was originated either. Even within the ufology community, this appears to be a minor claim. At the most, we might should have a passing mention at UFO conspiracy theory. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC) - Eldereft (cont.) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete - per G4 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. TN‑X-Man 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --jonny-mt 02:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second nomination of this article for deletion. It fails WP:N, WP:TOYS. Its only reference is a skateboarding forum, and google returns nothing promising. To quote Travellingcari, "No evidence of this game's notability". Leonard(Bloom) 18:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17-year-old who's done well in science fair competitions. All the sources refer to his placing in these competitions. I don't think this makes him a notable "scientist". NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE:This discussion may include the use of sockpuppetry by users Pdfreeman, ambcfoundation, Bpaftw, and Pbstrypsin. A formal on going investigation is in place at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pdfreeman.Nrswanson (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Pbstrypsin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very new artistic/musical movement. Even for a new organisation the number of Google hits seems very small and the article lacks any independent refs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability, being mentioned in a Soulja Boy song isn't notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rap artist, has yet to release an album, fails WP:MUSIC. TN‑X-Man 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion because the name of the article consitutes original research. The phrase "argument from poor design" does not appear in any cited source, gets zero hits on Google Scholar, and gets only hits that derive from Wikipedia on Google Web. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer who has never played in a fully professional league Jogurney (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys might want to bring this back because with the first two starting goalkeepers on IR for Besitkas he is their new starting goalkeeper and made an appearance for them in the Turkish Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.67.67 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball Keep --JForget 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not in general and certainly not for bits of stray jargon. This article is not an encyclopedic topic. At best the concept of an "anchor baby" could maybe be mentioned as a section, with proper cites, in some more appropriate article, but it just doesn't fit Wikipedia article standards. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom, a source not cited in the article shows this topic is at least historically notable. Thanks all for your input, it helped. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. Assertions of significance are not sourced and most of the article content has been stirred up by internal church disputes which are not of enyclopedic interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted per WP:SNOW, also as borderline patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a badly written essay whose seconded PROD was contested by a WP:SPA anon-IP. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/selective merge. Although there are a number of policy-based calls for deletion below, the consensus seems to be to keep the article so that the relevant content can be merged where it needs to go. As Nrswanson (wisely) points out below, this task is too complicated for a single closing admin to handle, so I leave it to the normal editing process to sort out. --jonny-mt 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An indiscriminate list of elementary schools in a school district. The only information about each is Principal's name, address, phone number, ect. so this can easily be defined under "Wikipedia is not a directory." Tavix (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, original research Tomdobb (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Young Spanish footballer who does not meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN per lack of appearances in a fully professional league (in Spain, only Primera and Segunda Division are fully professional, for all I know). WP:PROD contested by User:Gundam gx, the article creator, with no summary at all. Angelo (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of religious activist. Although he may be associated with notable people, he is not notable by himself. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now because he is famous. Will look around for references in due course. Tintin 15:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, waiting for Tintin to produce sources, else delete as BIO and SPAM per nom. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have looked for references and was not able to find any. I hope there are other sources that I was not able to find. There are two issues that I am concerned with. What is Vagbhatananda Gurudevar famous for, and what reliable sources back up this claim to being famous? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of non notable. Also, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 18:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of non notable. News coverage of one story cited. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Merge: the incident is notable in itself, although i don't know if the person should be the topic of the article, or the incident, or if it should be removed and merged in a more general article like Islam in India, or a (non existent) Hindi-Muslim Marriages in India. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.mundoandino.com/Argentina/Tartarian-Nights (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any reason of notability (nor any is claimed, apart an unsourced "amount of controversy due to its graphic nature (in spite of amounting practically null body count) and a certain number of subjects both parodied and criticized in its plot (religion, institutions)"). Of the links provided, one is a one-minute YouTube video, and the other does not mention the book. A Google search for "Benjamín Harguindey" mostly shows WP mirrors and a blog of somebody who liked the book. Goochelaar (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. lifebaka++ 12:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This subject does not seem to show a significant level of notability. The references used in the article only mention the organisation in passing, usually mentioning it merely as the publisher of Book X. In a previous nomination, this article was kept as it was believed that the subject had a "demonstrable effects on ...entertainment, athletics...". However, as was also pointed out in the previous nomination, the subject in question was merely incidental in the instances where there was a demonstrable effect. – PeeJay 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep --Leivick (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes a flash-in-the-pan news story that got picked up by a number of different papers and TV shows in a slow news week. The article fails WP:NOT#NEWS and has no potential for expansion that I can see.
Note: This page was previously speedy-deleted. The speedy-deletion was overturned in a Deletion Review on 1 Aug on procedural grounds. Rossami (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable web cartoon. Probable COI (cartoon made by "Braintree Studios", article created by User:Braintreestudios). Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notibility issues have been raised. Avi (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article about a programming development system. This is clearly an advert, including phrases such as "It's Very fun like a game", and an internet search yields just a few hits, which is indicative of lack of notability in this particular field. Mindmatrix 13:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWith respect to the first point 1 - It's really fun like a game, in scientific point of view because games are based on interaction, and programming without coding too, are based on interaction Programming without coding classified under multi-topics including Programming Languages, AI, Compiler & Games
With respect to the second point 1 - In the real world, there is lack of resource related to programming without coding, and this project (Programming Without Coding Technology) presented to reduce the gap in this field and present programming without coding to the real world as full replacement for coding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahmoud Fayed (talk • contribs) 14:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i will change the resources to be just one resource (the project website on sourceforge)
Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI have already updated the article 1) adding (Hello world example without coding - using Screen Shots of PWCT) 2) i removed the third paragraph 3) Is this help ?, or there are problems ?
Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 15:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, could someone modify the article to avoid these problems ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, i have updated the article, i hope that now everything is fine ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 04:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not the original research the article source is (Programming Without Coding Technology Help - 220 Pages) and every one can get these documents after downloading the software from sourceforge Is this everything, or i still need to do somthing ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi
At first with respect to project name there is no contradiction because programming is not coding, programming is a goal, and coding is a method to achieve that goal you can look at http://expresscode.wordpress.com/2007/03/24/coding-vs-programming/
With respect to freshmate, my project works only on MS-Windows and freshmate doesn't accept projects that works only on MS-Windows
With respect to other resources refer to the project it's well known in the xharbour community
1 - http://www.xharbour.org/index.asp?page=product/thirdparty you will find a link to the project under the name (Mahmoud DoubleS (Super Server) Framework)
2 - http://www.xharbour.com/xhc/index.asp?page=xhc_download.asp&show_h=8&show_i=8&show_sub=2 you will find an abstract for the project for download
3 - http://www.the-holms.org/xharbour/addon.htm you will find a link to the project under the name (doublesvsoop)
Also on sourceforge [ 06/08/2008 (dd/mm/yyyy) ]
my project rank is 134 of (more than 130,000 projects)
with active percentage = 99.94%
i hope that this is what is required ?
Greetings, Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same article, published on www.codeproject.com at this link http://www.codeproject.com/KB/winsdk/programmingwithoucoding.aspx is codeproject considered as second party reliable sources ? Mahmoud Fayed (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW Delete --JForget 23:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to satisfy basic notability and verifiability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Now, there is a consensus that there likely shouldn't be an article at this title, but there's no consensus on exactly what to do with it. I am going to leave it to editors more knowledgeable about the subject to discuss and make any editorial moves, redirects, merges, and disambiguations. lifebaka++ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant article, there are already pages for each individual soundtrack. The article voilates WP:CRUFT (what is PoA, GoF???) and some statements are left unsourced (WP:V). Merge any worthy and sourced infomation into Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (soundtrack), Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (soundtrack) or Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (soundtrack). Dalejenkins | 12:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. This article adds no value whatsoever. I would call it "original research" but the research is hardly original - there must have been many people who have figured this out already. It isn't particularly difficult in coming up with the formula - it's actually calculating its numeric value that is. You can put "the power of 10 to 5 trillion" in the numerator using your average home computer, but it would take the IBM Roadrunner to actually calculate the formula's value. And, most importantly, calculating the exact value of pi is impossible. Sorry for the rant. Just deleting it as a test page, OK? JIP | Talk 18:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An original method of correctly calculating pi to "zillions" of places. Yeah, okay. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 12:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
)
The result was Speedy delete CSD G3 - obvious hoax, no track of subject's existence in real life --Angelo (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Notability not established. Possibility of becoming notable in the future, but not yet. roleplayer 10:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is, in its current form, nothing more then a promotional article for the software companies added to it (With no good article to revert to). I added a warning that lists should only contain links to Wikipedia articles, but its still only featuring external links along with full contact information Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 10:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep - though there is disagreement on what Greater Europe means; perhaps this debate is what the article should be about if the reliable sources talk about the subject but cannot agree on what it is. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simply this entity or concept does not exist. All alleged references are not reputable sources. I severely doubt the term is used in any reputable notable publications. Nothing in this article could not be said in the Europe article. It is original research. Willy turner (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - No Consensus - Default to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article that does not assert its notability. It is also unclear whether all the listed programmes actually belong to a series per se. -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In its defence it's listed to distinguish it from the other Doodlemail, it's software from AT&T so presumably they're known to you (Wiki also has links to ZX Spectrum games and how 'notable' are they?), and it's independently mentioned in patents: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7003308/description.html. I find this incessant demand from anonymous sources to delete anything and everything they personally don't find notable to be baffling. It's not Windows Vista sure, but its worth keeping in. The creator's details are on his research page at AT&T:
HOWARD P KATSEFF
email: hpk@research.att.com
180 PARK AVE - BUILDING 103
FLORHAM PARK, NJ, 07932
Doodlemail (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is proposed for deletion for the following reasons:
1- Article has remained without any sources, verifiable or otherwise, since at least November of 2007.
2- Article reads as a fan page, with phrases such as "(the subject) is known to do a little bit of everything", "internationally recognized", "career has recently taken him to another level". These such phrases are typical in fan pages: internationally recognized in what nations? By whom? "A little of everything" is very ambiguous.
3- Multiple grammatical mistakes and incomplete sentences. 207.237.232.74 (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC) IP nomination copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVERS in a car - no brakes? I don't mind 09:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable free game. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G6 - housekeeping, one of the two articles this page disambiguated has been deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how 'speedily' deletion occurs so I am having to waste my time asking for these articles not be deleted before I have a chance to create them. You may be jaded wikipedia editors sick and tired of people creating pointless articles on their friend's aunt's pets, but Doodlemail the AT&T program is used by many people, as is the Doodlemail.co.uk email service. They are valid articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doodlemail (talk • contribs) 09:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Backup goalkeeper (fourth-choice) for Calcio Catania, a contested WP:PROD. He played solely with amateur teams, and never made a single appearance in a fully professional league [32]. The PROD was removed by User:Juve10 under the claim he actually played twice with Catania, but this is a false claim, as you can realize yourself with a short look at the sources. Angelo (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incoherent list Gabriel Kielland (talk) 07:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Following deletion at the last AfD, the article was recreated with the justification that it is about the trailer for the film, rather than the film itself, and thus is exempt from future film notability guidelines. I have several problems with this. One, this appears essentially to be an attempt to side-step process by following the letter of the guidelines while ignoring the spirit of them. Two, the vast majority of the article discusses the upcoming (as of yet unshot and thus failing NFF) feature film which this trailer was created for, and not the trailer itself. Three, this creates a somewhat tenuous precedent whereby all trailers, shorts, etc which are created for the purpose of attracting investors to a feature film may be considered notable. Indeed, if this is the example to follow, then all that is needed for any film big or small to warrant inclusion here is a trailer, even if no shooting has begun. However, some of the article's information is notable enough to merit merging to the bios for Baruchel and Rogen. I'd like to recommend that the rest of it be userfied and deleted from articlespace, for reasons above. I understand the frustration here, but a sober consideration of the larger picture aside from this particular entry is needed, instead of recreating deleted material under a slight shift in supposed focus. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(trailer)
was the original disambiguation from the future film article, but now that it was deleted, there was nothing to disambiguate the trailer article from. I think PC78 made the right move, and I think that the nominator's concern is not quite about "confusion" but more about a questionable precedent with trailers. If production does begin on the future film, we could discuss the best way to handle the content (separate articles for trailer and film, or combining them), but right now, all we know is that there is a trailer and there is not a film in the making. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]As you can see, there really isn't much to go on. I suggest incorporating the relevant information into the participants' individual articles, and when (if) the film begins principal photography, there will be plenty of scope in the film article's "Development"/"History" section to include what you've put together here. All the best, Steve T • C 09:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]"Jay and Seth vs. The Apocalypse, the Trailer" was made specifically as a fake trailer intended to incite interest in the making of a feature film.[1] It was written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, starred Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel, and had a soundtrack from Randy Newman. The ploy was successful as Variety reports that the comedy video created a "stir" when it appeared in June of 2007, and that several production companies vied for the rights for production.[3] When first posted to Youtube the clip billed itself as a trailer.[7] The trailer has had over 200,000 hits in the 14 months since its release. Eugene Novikov of Cinematical predicts the clip will disappear as potential filming nears.[9]
The result was keep. John254 00:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has several issues, including WP:COI, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:ADVERT. Λuα (Operibus anteire) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. lifebaka++ 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Music group which fails WP:MUSIC and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. No matches were found in the Google News Archive (all dates searched). [36] JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Sources provided by keep arguments, some of which are already on the article, are very strong. Spam concerns in this case are not enough to require deletion. lifebaka++ 13:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not a notable educational institution. Does not belong in the Wikipedia — Drjohnphd1965 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. List is not notable and information should be incorporated into the respective park pages. Momo Hemo (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected per TerriersFan, content has been merged already. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be non-notable. Only source doesn't even mention a "Weidman school of economics". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot points from the various Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Sandstein 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this is a discussion, and I've provided my input. For an almost four-year-old article which has already undergone an AfD for similar reasoning, I expect it to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N if it were going to. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Kevin (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the same way that Wikipedia draws the limit at councillors by only allowing federal and state MPs, I believe wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party (see this revision of the greens template) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an incomplete list of local political party precedents from the UK...
Local council level details in Greater London are maintained in detail. The fore-mentioned limits on political articles are being smashed in this case. Check the number of sub-categories and pages listed in this category for example.
Another example, councillors in New York City - Membership of the New York City Council
Many lists of mayors exist on Wikipedia, many of whom have pages, e.g. List of mayors of Phoenix, Arizona
Here's a random "sub-councillor" from Capetown, South Africa, Simon Grindrod. Found via this list of councillors - Members of the Cape Town City Council.
This is from a fairly brief search and is by no means comprehensive, I'm sure there are must be more examples of local politics articles. I appreciate that you don't wish to be inundated with articles for review, but there are clearly precedents for this level of detail on Wikipedia. And considering that up until this point this article is the first example of this sort of entry in Wikipedia for a local party in Australia I wouldn't think that you will find a major influx of new articles at this level. Sambauers (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me while I complain... I'm sure you will delete this page, but you really need to review your collective process. It would help if you simply said that you were going to delete the page and there is nothing I can do about it rather than sending me on a wild goose chase for precedents, which were found, and pretending that the article would be kept if it was supported by certain types of sources. I have referred to Wikipedia documents regarding notability of political parties and presented evidence of the groups autonomy for naught. This article is verifiable, is not original research, does not violate copyright and has no POV. The deletion is based on a single editors belief that "wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party" and not any precedent or policy. Consensus has been determined by a head count rather than the strength of the arguments, this goes against Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. Not once have I been offered assistance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. I have good reason to refer this to deletion review, but I won't bother, clearly there is little opposition to limiting the scope of political articles in Australia. I will be a good Wikipedian and make sure that all trace of Randwick-Botany Greens and any other "non-notable" local content I can find in my local government area is removed or marked for deletion. Sambauers (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remove this redirect page, it should be Speedy Deleted [43] Sambauers (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdraw. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The company does sell through Kroger - a major notability claim. However, there are several problems: only one secondary source is used, an overly promotional tone (some of which may be copyvio from an old version of the website), a logo used without any fair use declaration, and really bad layout requiring wikifying to even bring to par. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Synergy 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is biographical, uncited, and unnecessary. This person is not a person of relevance. Ohgreedohyes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Operator Please. lifebaka++ 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No longer notable person, keeps adding to her own article, constant vandalism. Drinkaboutit (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her page is constantly being vandalized and i believe this to be just another act by those childish people involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.2 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The result was Delete all. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Promo EP with no sources nor assertion of notability. According to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) Stormie (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as blatant advertising. -- Longhair\talk 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to demonstrate that the company meets the primary criterion for notability specified in WP:COMPANY. The article is aimed at commercial promotion of a business entity. The creator of the article, Bugsbunny1, has contributed only five edits, all related to this company. It appears to be a conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usual crystal ball article. Sources provide essentially no information. Track list unsourced. No release date. No title. Kww (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete The article fails to give reliable sources and verifiability about the track listing and the release date about the album which WP:Music#Albums wants. Reuters and billboard doesn't state the track list or the album release date but only states their will be an album, therefore it also fails WP:CBALL --Kanonkas : Talk 15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played at least a couple of games for Galatasaray[51][52] in 2005 per Turkish Football Federation website. (Striking out my keep vote per Jogurney clarification that these are not Super Lig games. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the sportsman may be notable, but the people who work for him are not inherently so Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as he passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I considered the arguments for merging the article, but if this article is expanded to include basic information on all parks in the system, keeping it standalone would be the best way to present this information. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself, any content could be merged into the Cobb County article. Wizardman 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to List of Twilight characters--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article- It is strong enough to survive on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.86.192 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
KEEP THIS ARTICLE! It's 100% valid. She's not JUST a minor character. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.208.119 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Penance Stare... um... delete. Keep arguments did not give sources to verify information to my knowledge. Marvel reference necessary. lifebaka++ 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was prodded a long time ago, apparently (article dates to Nov. 2005), and while the prod was removed, notability of the subject is not established by reliable sources. Looking at the talk page, it's all "sourced" through Google video and blogs. The article itself uses nothing but the rider's own site as external links. All the material he has appeared in is self-released. GHits are this article as #1, followed by YouTube and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Gazimoff 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]