The result was No consensus, defaults to keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep - Noone agreeing that it should be deleted and the nomination does not give a policy reason for deleting. Lack of sources in an article is often a prompt for improvement rather than deletion.Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. BJTalk 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generic junior school, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability unclear. WP:REALITY is against reality show contestants being seen as WP:N for that alone. Is her prior career sufficiently WP:N according to WP:CREATIVE? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was first speedied for WP:NN, still deleted after a ((hangon)), then went through DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_24 and was restored. I was a contributor to that process, arguing that it should be restored on the question of process, not content. If this article eventually fails, it will only be on a minor point of WP:NN and never needed that sort of heavy-handed treatment.
As to WP:N itself, I can only suggest that editors read Talk:Kelli Martin first, where there is discussion at some length.
I regret AfDing this article, as I'm really not certain myself as to which side of the line it falls. Please consider my opinion to be an abstention, but I believe it does need a wider airing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. There are no Google (web/books/news) hits for this term, and barely any hits for "railroad gin" itself except in reference to a band named Railroad Gin and a single line from a Bob Dylan song. Father Goose (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by User:Orangemike. Tiptoety talk 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely WP:HOAX article. I have been running multiple unsuccessful searches to find anything about this person. His artist name does return two unusable results, his real name in combination with the festival/oem/book returns nothing. Also, a search on the book has no results identifying its existence at all. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Vietnam, already merged there. lifebaka++ 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep – nomination withdrawn after reliable sources were found to establish notability. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable building, unlikely to be multiple independent sources of information. Aaronw (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why would anyone nominate to delete this article (or any other article for that matter) regarding a diplomatic mission to another country? Aquintero (talk) 10:13, 09 August, 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing more than a violation of WP:SOAP, it is full of weasel words, there are no third party sources (therefore a violation of WP:V, no references, reads like someones essay or blog entry, it violates WP:NPOV, and to that end, there is nothing listed in this article that would support notability. nat.utoronto 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be solely composed of original research based on opinion polls, or states which are always battleground states (FL/MI/OH/PA). Thus was the reason why Swing state was tagged as containing original research several months ago. Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments as to lack of notability are solid, and User:Peripitus's analysis is convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory; this shopping centre is not notable. Delete both articles about it. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Werdna. Canley (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Short article on an airline incident not likely to have long term notability. The incident doesn't meet the notability guidance developed by the Aviation WikiProject and detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Aviation accidents. Diversions due to smoke in the cockpit aren't typically considered notable, and the fact that this diversion caused a slight delay to the arrival of the Emirates A380 from San Francisco doesn't make it notable, either. Also, keep in mind WP:NOBJ which notes it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable TV character - Sorfane 08:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn The song did indeed chart, so it's probably notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Didn't chart. Only sources were fansites, which I removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge with Chippenham--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church. And that BBC reference is not about the church, but about Paul Jones (the church is cited briefly as a venue where the singer was making an appearance). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:40, 13 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 is a thinly-veiled advertisement. See Talk:ZCubes#Summary of issues with this article. DanielPenfield (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statement | Response |
---|---|
"I fail to see how the sources from TheHindu or to a lesser extent the Guardian are described as advertorials" |
|
"sources such as those are commonly used as references on wikipedia" | |
"being poorly written or being written in a non neutral point of view are grounds for asking the article to be improved but are not grounds for deletion" | Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion G#11 "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." |
"Lastly please could you substantiate the serious charge of 'vote-stacking' that you have made against Kevin Murray?" | I overstated the case and have corrected it. |
NOTE User DanielPenfield suggested this issue at the WP:CORP discussion page as a reason to justify his attempts to unilaterally rewrite that guideline, where he was reverted by myself and another, but gained no specific support for his edits. After reviewing the Zcubes article and finding it moderately referenced I removed his prod tag as allowed by procedure and suggested that it be sent to AfD to discuss and improve the sources. Dan accused me of misdeeds at my talk page and the WP:CORP talk page, including offensive comments about MBAs (my degree as described at my user page) ethics and abilities. Prior to this I had no knowledge of Dan nor ZCubes. My further involvement has been to, do a Google search, add a reference (Guardian), and divide the bibliography (reference) section from the footnotes. In an effort to rectify the situation I will be seeking career/vocational counseling and rehabilitation, return several million dollars that I have treacherously extorted from the free-markets, and hang my head in shame all weekend long. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lucaskant (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. --jonny-mt 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
prod removed with no reason given. game with no claim to notability, lacks references Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i say let it stay " game with no claim to notability" the game was a Finalists in the Independent Games Festival Mobile for Audio Achievement: http://www.igfmobile.com/02finalists.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andri12 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author of the game: I have edited the article with links to external sources including the nomination as an Independent Games Festival and an interview from a notable website, and the presence of Yuan Works in the Game Developer's Conference. --YuanHao (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
album page for NN band, band page long since deleted but this has somehow escaped the process - previous prod attempt was declined and referred back to Afd as it had been referred before, which I'm now doing Hunting dog (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as COI OR essay. Sandstein 21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New colposcopy technique, invented in South-America in 2005. No PubMed links, few links on Google Scholar but not included in major reviews. Hence, Original research without reliable tertiary sources (yet). Creator claims to be the second author of this paper, even if that would be true, copyright issues remain as we don't have permission from the other authors or the journal. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge/Redirect to Motion City Soundtrack (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD was no consensus, band member who has done little notable outside of the band.
The result was delete. Wizardman 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. G11 speedy removed by a SPA. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short and concentrated article about the project. (EsetCo (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
New update (EsetCo (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I have listed it under; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges#Worldwide:_Internet-based (NielsArm (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
PS. The name of the exchange is written with @ and a lowercase - k@mille (NielsArm (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete. All articles need at least the possibility reliable sourcing per policy. --Leivick (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious organization. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N. Ragib (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - this is not really a school, despite the claim made in the page. Rather, per their website, they have *future plans* for a school. It seems to be a religious studies group, or prayer circle. --Ragib (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent)Ok, there are accusations of bias and stalking going on here, both of which are pretty serious. Let's try and put our concerns about other editors aside and focus on the article at hand: the bottom line is that to qualify for an article in Wikipedia, a topic has to establish notability by Wikipedia's rules. That does not include 'important to a big number of people', but it does include WP:RS which really is non-negotiable. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was weak keep. Sandstein 16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This group does not appear to be very notable outisde its own circle. I personally suspect it to be more of self-advertiseing than an actual article MethMan47 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not seem to be notable. However, I have made some researches but I didn't find anything substantial which may assert importance. Infringement in the article like "Søvnist religion, a religion based on relaxion and television worship." looks vandal. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Not even sure why it was brought here, blatant G3 vandalism. Wizardman 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Offensive vandal redirect (?) ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete: arguments for keeping failed to address the concerns. `'Míkka>t 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes an apparently non-notable perversion. The singular reference to an unreliable source provided fails to establish the practice's notability per the general notability guideline, or any other notability guidelines. John254 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator and major editor of the article has a WP:COI with the product, being the products creator. The product is in beta, and no sources have been offered to indicate it is notable. Ronz (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. The subject of the article does not appear to meet the notability criteria set out at WP:MUSIC. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation, COI/advert. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Holstein Artificial Insemination Bulls concerning an article created by the same account. Sandstein 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. Sandstein 19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real breed Lillolollo (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I created the list and have found that the awards/nominations aren't notable, it would be best if it were deleted. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. May be recreated if sources are provided indicating his importance. Sandstein 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of an individual concerning one event. Not a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a non notable religious leader. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted never mind go away get back to work
PROD removed without explanation or improvements. PROD rationale was that it is a non notable drink and blatant unsourced original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep The individual is clearly notable. This is among the nom's first edits as well, so I suspect a WP:COI/WP:POINT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article should either be deleted or changed to Hythiam instead. To be honest, Terren Peizer is a nobody and is one of millions of people who started companies but do not have a Wikipedia page. Even the sensationalism written up about his ties to the crook Michael Milken is unworthy of mentioning. Peizer was one of numerous people who testified against Milken, after being just as corrupt as he was when working for him. Most of the references provided are offline and cannot be found over the internet. This leads to a question of whether or not the articles were in fact written, or just made up. The only sources online are the same sources and most of them have been provided by Peizer's employess via a press release or promotion on business sites. They were also the ones who probably created this ridiculous article, as an attempt to present a resume and advertisement about their boss. Peizer himself may have even started it, as it was filled with praise and boasting.
All in all, this person is completely irrelevant and is not even worth mentioning or talking about.
Singleschmingle (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)— User:Singleschmingle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Several references have been added during the AfD, and it is not clear to what degree these have been taken into account. Sandstein 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged for lack of notability for over a year, and with good reason, for the subject isn't notable. Biography of an American officer in World War II whose greatest claim of notability appears to be (1) being one of several people who were together made a composite single character in a John Wayne movie, and (2) being awarded the Legion of Merit. Neither of these confer notability, individually or together. There are four references, but one is a directory, two are likely obituaries, and the final is a regimental history: if these confer notability, any military officer whose death was noted in a newspaper is likely notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was conditions of WP:SNOW clearly met, keep, non-admin closure Beeblbrox (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs reliable sources to show it meets the general criteria at WP:N. Very few ghits for "Adelbert Mossman House" -wikipedia. The author contested the WP:PROD by stating: I object to deletion because the House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore prima facie notable. (diff). However, to be notable surely there needs to be in depth coverage in multiple sources? JD554 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD closed due to mass nominations making the process unwieldy. Local non-notable fire department. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, No reason for a separate page or a redirect from an unlikely search term. Possibly worth a mention on the main C4 page. --Leivick (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, this article is about the last car that was produced of a certain series? If so, I don't see how it meets notability guidelines StaticGull Talk 15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Arrow keys (non-admin closure), duplicate information as found in the newly-merged Arrow keys. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merely playing with another band doesn't seem likely to qualify for notability guidelines. StaticGull Talk 15:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; editorial redirect possible. Sandstein 16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE NOT A REAL FOOTBALL PLAYER! Jerryreese17 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax - ESPN has never heard of this guy. [34] Oh, and the picture is of New York Giant Kenny Phillips. I'm off to play a little tag. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G12- Copyright violation) by Orangemike. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pure speculation. StaticGull Talk 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The album hasn't been released yet(?). StaticGull Talk 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability is established and does not meet the Music criteria: Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:REF, WP:MUSIC#Song. SRX 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per withdrawal of nomination with no one advocating deletion. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only notability I see established is that the article is incorporated from a Catholic Encyclopedia. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N. SRX 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (Was already deleted) Wizardman 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't done any really notable work, also WP:COI. StaticGull Talk 14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally when confronted by something this biased with no valid version to revert to, it would just disappear as spam. However, this one seems to have had so much work put into it – and is so obviously on a potentially valid topic – that I'll bring it over here to see if anyone can think of a way to save it. Procedural nom so I abstain. – iridescent 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I removed the speedy tag from this as there is some notability claimed (being the subject of a song by Daggermouth), but I just don't think it's enough per WP:MUSIC. Google search for "Mike Peecher" mostly brings up lyrics to the Daggermouth song, but no evidence that it's actually about this person. (And there are no sources where anyone likens him to Freddie Mercury.) The previous band album didn't chart and the new solo album is not yet released. ... discospinster talk 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Album didn't chart? Please, Neither did the daggermouth albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.207.204 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i don't see why anyone would want this deleted. peech 4ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.124.75 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was selective merge to Linkin Park discography. There seems to be a rough split between those calling for deletion and those calling for a merge (I'm including Startstop's comments in the latter), so I'm defaulting to the option that keeps the most comment. The comments in favor of keeping the article were largely discounted, as they did not provide any evidence demonstrating that the article is sufficiently notable for standalone inclusion. --jonny-mt 07:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan club. No third-party, reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look notable, no sourcing. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete all a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User has created several articles about albums, youtube videos and movies which notability is very doubtful, if they are not even a hoax Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user and are products by the same "artists" - The "artists" have been requested to be speedily deleted:[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod regarding a future sporting event currently lacking in verifiable information. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 talk 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not time yet for this article --Numyht (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until the host is announced.BUC (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user has created a page about himself without demonstrating with reliable sources why s/he may or may not be notable ClubOranjeTalk 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is it you want me to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I played profesionally in Ireland, Faroe Ireland, Sweden and 3 seasons in Norway. That mean the club payed my salary.
PS! I have nothing to do with this candy shop :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) And yes i was born Johansen, but changed my surename to Winther —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, is this for me critiziseing Wikipedia last night? Well to know that a person like Matthewithe editing football on wikipedia says most of it? He don't even know the difference of Faroe and Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted both my profile and Playerhistory, please also remove my link from available sources.
Just to help you out a little:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Clitnovici
He never played for: Barnsley 03/04
He never played for: Craiova 02/03
He never played for: Elche 07/08
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The league itself is not profesionell but they have professionell players.
I can't believe that Wikipedia (the copysite) are question playerhistory.com as NOT reliable. Please look in your own nest before critise others. I can promise you one thing. If i really want i can find at least 20000 WRONG adding on football players in wikipedia. We have started a group to notify media around the world about wikipedia and their copycat attitude. So good luck. My vote is delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 08:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean by that is as follow: Contributors of wikipedia are copying other sites WITHOUT checking if the sources are reliable or not. They also make straight copies and paste it to wikipedia. I have proof and will be happy to provide it to you.
By the way could you check out who added the player of Daniel_Clitnovici? His adding is totally wrong, He has never played in Barnsley 03/04, Craiova 02/03 or Elche 07/08 Is that profile a AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted as A7 or G11. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely not notable. Search produced a mere 20 results, fails WP:V and WP:N. Author removed WP:PROD. JD554 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Synergy 11:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE and, I think, WP:BIO. Last I found he is still playing for UNT, not a fully professional league. He has recieved a very decent amount of coverage in '04 and '05, most of it trivial though (scorecards and match coverage). The most significant coverage seems to be this from late '04. Tagged for notability since June 2007. I think this does not add up to significant coverage thus fails WP:BIO. AmaltheaTalk 10:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Un-sourced article on a fictitious product within a TV series (?). Article uses assumptions ("it seems as though...") to back up 'points'. Was CSDd, and changed to PROD by an admin. PROD was removed by unknown IP (not creator) so I've brought it here instead. Booglamay (talk) - 10:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as apparent hoax. The contributions by Theazerbaijanglory are discounted as incomprehensible. Sandstein 16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article is a hoax or at the very best a fantasy. It's unreferenced, created by an SPA, completely at odds with the history of Sri Lanka in other WP articles such as Sri Lanka and Kingdom of Kandy. The article's purpose seems to be to support the claims in Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII, which gets a flat zero ghits for the subject and which I'm also nominating. andy (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the codes of conduct put up by king Nissanka Malla are still presevered in documentaion. i will try my best to upload to these information to other websites to help people across seas to known what a great monarchy sri lanka once had and what there desendants do in pretendence. --Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please find below the page numbers.
20th Centuray Impression of ceylon (1905):-
Pages :- 287 (gives details about George Edward Gunawardena)includin pictures. Pages : - 598 (Details of the paternal ancestry)
the richmond castle mentioned in the article is now owned by the public trustee and was built by the gran uncle of the person who is in the article (his brothers desendants). but custamarily this mansion is used for annnoiting. the link to a news paper article is [[40]]
Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the "Great Dynasty
Pages:- 354 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and also the Rajawaliya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say that.... and why the anyway.....
anyway, i tried to update your site with sri lanka history. your LIst of longest reining monarchs of all time does not show a single sri lankan monarch, there where many sri lankan kings who rulled 50+ years, and King Pandukaabhya ruled for 70 years.
as for the fantasy thing. yes it is a fantasy!!!!!!!!, if any of you people are in sri lanka, please read the paper the Sunday times of Sri Lanka next sunday. for an inteview with the person mentioned in the article. my kind request to you, remains do some justice to sri lankan history and update your site with more information about Sri Lanka History.............. , which i suppose will not be found online, refere the Rajawaliya.... [Lankan Glory] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
from myside i will not further write on this page ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i close the discussion from my side and leave others to do what ever they want.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
now this Prince Jerry, the Article, i have provided a refernce link, what more information do you expect from the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
after serious editing this article could be merged with a relative of the person in the article, if any exist.......--Pauljohn564 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not indicate significance. Article is unreference. Demo was recorded but was never release. – Jerryteps 09:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Aviculture. Sandstein 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Covered better on the aviculture page. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Arrow keys (non-admin closure), merge completed per result from the first AfD. MuZemike (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASD keys, article was to be merged promptly. The article is entirely unsourced. Little attempt has been made to improve ([43]) the article or merge the article since the last AfD. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in content and notability:
--Voidvector (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no sources and breaches WP:RS. Clearly POV throughout and breaches WP:NPOV. Some of the assertions made are designed to make a WP:POINT about the perceived popularity of certain sports. Adds absolutely no value to the encyclopaedia. BlackJack | talk page 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No verifiable reliable sources to show why this article meets the notability criteria at WP:WEB. Failed WP:PROD. JD554 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's all I got though, the news paper article was alot bigger, they have shortened it on the Internet. Fell free to delete the article since I don't have any more sources, I did find a press release on IDG but I read that press releases don't qualify. Sad though... Pexter12345 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article classifies as over-coverage of this particular football tournament. The tournament is not a senior one, and is not even an important one in the football calendar, compared to the FIFA World Cup or the UEFA European Championships, which do deserve this sort of article. – PeeJay 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A rendering engine (the author assumes we know what that is) written up by its developer. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This song fails WP:MUSIC as a song that was not released as a single (and didn't even make the cut on their album). There is a claim that the song is "popular on Youtube", but no reliable sources are offered to back it up. UsaSatsui (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I am a bit unimpressed by the arguments used (the debate here is basically a "it's not notable" v. "it's notable" contest), but there clearly is not a consensus for deletion here, and the argument given for deletion was superficial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - identical material contained in Concepts in the seduction community. KrakatoaKatie 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This individual suffers from synesthesia, and due to having this condition has been featured in studies and reports about it. However, he is not notable for any type of achievement, and the one linked source would appear to be about the symptoms of synesthesia using the this individual as an example, rather than the individual himself. Falls somewhere between not been being notable and WP:BLP1E, both of which are short of Typhoid Mary and WP:BIO. Deiz talk 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross Clark fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in fully professional association football. I proposed the article for deletion, but User:Foxtrot1985 removed the comment, saying on my talk page that "He has played in a professional league (Scottish Third Division) and therefore qualifies as an athlete." He has played in the lower divisions of Scottish football, but not for fully professional clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to lack of notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article on an amateur football team with no evidence of notability presented. Grahame (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Shereth 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable term with very restricted use, seemingly only applicable to the work of a single author. Heavily dependent on niche language from other "seduction" articles. Rob Banzai (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we have these three reliable sources defining and discussing the term, plus two books in the current article by the guy who coined the term and wrote extensively about it. Rather than being deleted, this article should be improved using the reliable sources available. --SecondSight (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I can't bring myself to say 'keep' as the article and concept is so vile, but I'm afraid this concept has been mentioned in many WP:RS. [56] The article needs a lot of WP:NPOVing and other help though.Sticky Parkin 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | As anyone who regularly reads newspapers or true-crime books knows, a significant percentage of violent crime, from kidnappings to shooting sprees, is the result of the frustrated sexual impulses and desires of males. By socializing guys like Sasha, Mystery and I were making the world a safer place. | ” |
— Neil Strauss |
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in multiple relaible sources. Google scholar shows no ghit [59]. Fails to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it don't think this person meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). As his article was deleted from fawiki Mardetanha talk 04:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks Notability and is full of original research Advocate (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Definitely a BLP problem, no prejudice against creating a sourced version, but isn't really a start. --Leivick (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list based on a subjective term. Neutralitytalk 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G3 by Pegasus , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supposed animated TV series based on the movie Camp Rock. However there are no sources that prove this series exist; further, why would a movie by Disney have animated spin-off airing on Cartoon Network, which is owned by one of Disney's biggest rivals? This is an obvious hoax; I also suspect the creator and the separate user who removed my prod for this article are socks of blocked user User:Danny Daniel, as this user's editing pattern (creating articles about non-existent animated series) matches DD's work. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, WP:CRYSTAL. The only sources are from Hank III's own website and what appears to be a forum. The allmusic link has just a track listing; no writers, personnel or even track lengths. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Clearly a non-notable comic-strip character, with nothing to verify its accuracy or existence. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A casual Google search turns up nothing to support notability. (That whirring sound you hear is Bram Stoker spinning in his grave.) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure), because it has become impossible to debate the merits of the article in question due to the blatant disruption of the AfD process. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local fire department, of no particular notability beyond the poor folks in Girard, Ohio, whose homes are burning. Options can include deletion (as the article fails WP:N and WP:RS, or merging or redirecting to the Girard, Ohio. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn In view of the outrageous disruption of the article's debate, I have no choice but to withdraw the nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to nominate other articles in the same category as it which are equally non-notable (or make no attempt to assert notability):
There are a lot more of these, and if anyone else wants me to add the rest of them, they should leave me a note on my talkpage, as I don't want to spend all night nominating more of these if the community thinks it is out of line. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the article, this is a "comedy fictional card game from the television series, The League of Gentlemen from the Series 2 episode." No notability whatsoever, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable search engine, presented in an article that reads like marketing collateral. Dismally fails WP:RS (all of the references in the nominated article circle back to the Gigablast site). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with Clive Robertson. KrakatoaKatie 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing here suggests notability, except marriage to Clive Robertson, which in my view doesn't confer notability. Grahame (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this is certainly a sad incident, it isn't clear how this is more notable than hundreds of other murders each year. The article doesn't establish why it is notable enough for retention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Kevin (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article suggests that this DJ is notable Grahame (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Enigma message 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Represents someone's original research. No evidence this term has been notably used by any reliable sources. Loodog (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((fact))
ing or removing ones for which none appear. While I'm in the shop, much more worthy of attention is both the title and content of Grande Dame Guignol, the title of which is I think a neologism used in one DVD commentary and some blogs and amateur websites, and the content of which is a decent but entirely OR essay. 86.44.18.48 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Ed Guerrero argues that the buddy film of the 1970s rose out of a reaction to the women's movement ("Black" 238-39). To punish women for their desire for equality, the buddy film pushes them out of the center of the narrative and replaces the traditional central romantic relationship between a man and a woman with a buddy relationship between two men. By making both protagonists men, the central issue of the film becomes the growth and development of their friendship. Women as potential love interests are thus eliminated from the narrative space. In the 1970s, the relationship between two buddies was predominantly one between two white men; in the 1980s, the genre mutated into a relationship between a black man and a white man. | ” |
— Gates, Philippa (Spring 2004). "Always a Partner in Crime: Black Masculinity in the Hollywood Detective Film". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 32 (1): 20–29. |
BUDDY FILM: A film that features the friendship of two males as the major relationship ... Such films extol the virtues of male comradeship and relegate male-female relationships to a subsidiary position. Male relationships have always been a significant element in our popular culture, from the Leatherstocking Tales of James Fenimore Cooper to television beer commercials.
The result was delete and recreate as redirect to WALL-E. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictitious company; entirely in-universe information; not enough reliable non-trivial 3rd party sources to establish notability independently of the film WALL-E. Chardish (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested and declined speedy deletion--there is a clear assertion of notability, so not a speedy candidate, but may benefit from a wider debate on general notability and reliability of this information. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The issue here is that there are no verifiable sources given. If some are found that establish the truth of these claims than I will change my vote to keep.Nrswanson (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are now beginning to surface in the article. I believe this page will be useful for the people that want to learn more about this man, since he is widely known for his programs, now an important part of skinning Windows XP. DeathShot39 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. No references at all. Few Google hits. Written like an ad, or at least a press release. Declined speedy, but User:DGG noted in the edit summary: "almost certain will be deleted if taken to AfD". (Is that a vote, David?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), snowball closure, government licensed stations are considered notable by consensus, notability is not temporary. Rtphokie (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't pass WP:N, defunct station with nothing particularly special or notable about it KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No established notability for this book. Prod was contested on the grounds of nobility (see Talk:Forest of the Sprites). Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "Article" is written like an Advert, cites no sources, contains opinion and overall encyclopedic content is questionable. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If there are any sourcing issues with individual entries, this can be remedied through editing or, per WP:V, removal. Sandstein 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
Criteria for inclusion are too susceptible to bias, and irreparably so. The concept of "designation" is relatively modern, and not used by many countries, so almost every organisation listed here has been listed by US, UK or Australia.
If we were to loosen the definition to reduce this bias, we'd start running into verifiability problems. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inclusion in such a list irrevocably NPOV - either the inclusion criteria themselves will be POV - e.g. requiring "designation" on a list biases POV to those who systematically make such lists, or too open to dispute - what is a "reliable source" for determining inclusion? Because of the pejorative nature of the term, listing (or not) here is too important an issue to suffer such problems. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • wish me a happy wikiversary! • contribs 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I looked back through the page history and this topic was obviously established for a POV against turtles as pets. I can't find enough sources to merit an article otherwise, and this history is littered with POV. As for a cleanup, it is my personal opinion that such article is not needed. Should it be created, let's delete this version first. Keegantalk 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]