The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 15:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author, named Rarecpus, originally had a short blurb about rare CPUs followed by a link to rarecpus.com. The author has since then (improperly) removed speedy deletion tags for advertising twice and has removed a PROD tag. In the meantime, the author has added a list of numerous sites related to rare CPUs—and the link for rarecpus.com remains at the top.
At one point, the author briefly included text noting that these sites have NOTHING to sell or gain by having their link posted", but that's immaterial because promotion for the purpose of increasing traffic to websites is also against Wikipedia policy.
The applicable guidelines are:
The person who had placed the PROD notice had claimed "non-notable hobby" as a reason for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This entry in my mind should be deleted because as mentioned in its talk page, they have not been active since 2006 and one member -- the founder -- claims that it won't be back up until 2010. In 2010, if they do something notable, then this entry should be revived. But for now, it is not notable. This looks like a group comprised of the founder and nobody else, at least in this point of time. Also, they claim "a member of the Centrist Party" ran for Congress in 2004, but this is completely dubious because the party claims to have been founded in 2006.
The following is also reposted in my vote. But as it may not be clear as to whether or not I, as the nominator, can also vote, I want to add my additional justifications and researched rationale for proposing that this article be deleted.
All coverage was within a couple-month timeframe back in 2006. All of it focused on the founder's efforts. There is been no coverage since 2006. It appears that the efforts foundered and their has not been one item of evidence indicating any members and certainly no coverage to demonstrate notability since 2006. All that has existed of this group is a Web site that lists no members and does not publicize news of the party. danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to go on the record as stating that I am willing to go along with a suggestion of deleting this stand-alone entry and instead merging the Centrist Party into a "list of" or some comparable location. In that way, if they do become notable in 2010 as the founder, and still only verifiable member, purports, then this entry would be notable. But as it stands now, this is a party of one man. To further substantiate my claim that this entry should be deleted, take a look at the 2006 articles cited on the entry. The only member of the party quoted, named or refereced as a member is the founder. Not one other person is referenced anywhere as an official member. In short, this is the 2006 efforts of one guy who attempted to start a party but never gained any members, and in fact has not demonstrated any notable or ascertainable activity since August 2006.danprice19 (talk) 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable county-level politician who fails WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, suspected WP:SOAP for self-promotion by article creator User:Gparker001. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A case of WP:ONEEVENT... concerning a cardboard robot for Obama. While the sources all cover the joke, it was just that, a joke. It's the same as having a news article for the one guy dressed as Batman who showed up to push poll for Obama, the reports will cover it but it will be entirely trivial and has no more notability after the fact than the day before. –– Lid(Talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This purported console game is not verifiable and may be a hoax, or someone's private fantasy. The Japanese characters given are a transliteration of the English word 'fit', as in 'Wii Fit'. The link is to a Korean (not Japanese) article that I cannot read, but which does not appear to be a reliable source. I submit that if Nintendo were to publish such a game, it would be readily verifiable. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the official commercials of Nintendo. You can find this information here: Wii mini me. It is called Mii in some countries, but the original name is Wii mini me. --Lauray en (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)— Lauray en (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
The result was Both Speedied by Lid - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (non admin)[reply]
This is a neologism and something made up one day. There is no evidence that the term has achieved widespread use. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating ...I agree - Richard Cavell (talk)
The result was keep per nom withdrawal. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 17:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article is problematic for a number of reasons. The brand itself may not be notable - indeed, it appears that the product did not succeed on its own merits, although it is claimed that it was the first product of its type and that it may be notable for that reason. The sources given are not verifiable and reliable secondary sources. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism apparently coined by one journalist in a blog post. Contested PROD. Also POV issues (but that's not a reason for deletion). Sandstein 22:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this radical title ridiculuos in its propaganda-fantasyland vocublary, but it is a clear aim to belittle the real Holocaust, of WW2, no battle between two sides can ever be called a "holocaust". It's even a serious crime on those 6,000,000! Diletodo (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webzine. Prod contested by article author User:Playthismag. --Finngall talk 20:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable or encyclopaedic TeapotgeorgeTalk 20:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per obvious consensus. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable film Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 20:23, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. One (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Individuals only notable in the context of a single event should not have separate articles, per WP:BLP1E; her participation in McCain's campaign probably qualifies as a single event. Recommend merge and redirect to Democratic and liberal support for John McCain in 2008. — Swpbτ • c 20:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator Mayalld (talk)
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. One (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a YouTube celebrity. Has no notability outside his YouTube charactor Fred (YouTube). Article should be deleted and useful content should be moved to that article. Reywas92Talk 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and Improve I hope all of you go there and boldly do it. (non-admin, per WP:SNOW) Cerejota (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thinly veiled advertisement for a brand of flexible tubing. The only sources provided in the article are primary ones. I've had a look on Google and found enough to prove the thing exists, but no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources that would justify an article here. Wikipedia is not a product catalog. Reyk YO! 19:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article attempts to justify itself by saying "the theoretical study of the regression problem requires a precise mathematical context than that given in the Regression analysis article" and purports to provide that "context". That this sort of "context" is needed is nonsense. The article takes pains to define the random variables involved as measurable functions on a probability space, Kolmogorov-style, and seems to assert that that is needed for rigorous mathematical study of regression problems. That is false. Then the article entirely neglects any mention of statistical estimation of parameters or of the regression function, which is in fact essential to any regression problem (what's "least squares" all about??), or of hypothesis testing, etc. Just what is the role of the parameter θ? The article is offensively vague about that. The way of using it suggests that θ is a parameter to be estimated, but earlier in the article θ is a member of the domain of the underlying probability space. That is really serioius confusion at best. The article also asserts that the predictor variables are themselves random variables. In some cases that is true; in other cases they are determined by the design of the experiment and not random at all. In effect, the creator of the article appears to have wanted to show off his mastery of Kolmogorov-style notation while applying it to a statistical problem that he or she did not understand at all, and to assert, falsely, that that approach is needed in order to study regression problems. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been able to find any evidence, outside of this article, that the Omen lance described ever existed. Therefore, I believe the article is a hoax. Terrakyte (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that "Phenomenological thermodynamics" is a synonym for "classical thermodynamics", but doesn't provide any evidence that the phrase is ever used. Delete as non-notable phrase, content already contained in classical thermodynamics. Djr32 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little background regarding the article. The editor Sadi Carnot (talk) started the article Phenomenological thermodynamics 3 years ago and he wrote in the article that it was "...synonymous with classical thermodynamics...". One month later he started the article Classical thermodynamics. So why did he start the new article if he believed that phenomenological thermodynamics was the same thing as classical thermodynamics??? Perhaps the answer is that this is an editor with issues, as evidenced by his talk page.
And look at Talk:Phenomenological thermodynamics too. The article has existed for 3 years and its talk page has no rating and no discussion.
Also, look at the meager number of edits in the history of this article. No content contributions since Sadi Carnot started it 3 years ago. Most of the activity regarding this article is related to proposals for its deletion or merge.
Personally, I think it is superficial, redundant, and not worthwhile, but if anyone likes something in Phenomenological thermodynamics, copy that part over to Classical thermodynamics now. It's time to clean things up and delete Phenomenological thermodynamics. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand "redirect" correctly, it means that someone looking for phenomenological thermodynamics will be referred to another article instead of being made aware of the article phenomenological thermodynamics. If there is a redirect, it should be to Thermodynamics. Also, if someone was googling phenomenological thermodynamics wiki, wouldn't the problem article still come up at the top of the hit list? Let's clean things up by deleting the article phenomenoligical thermodynamics and not just trying to sweep it under the rug with a redirect. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article did in fact tell us all this. And it was right. So is Ruslik0. Redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was weak keep. If the article about this apparent 'curse' isn't expanded in the near future, it should probably be listed again. One (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced original research. - Fails WP:OR ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge isn't a bad idea, but there seems to be enough coverage of the worst to first, first to worst pattern that an independent article can be justified. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Foxy Loxy Pounce! 01:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet cricket notability guidelines of having played one major cricket match. Jpeeling (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Designer clothing. MBisanz talk 04:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Un-needed personal essay on clothing and fashion brands. TrulyBlue (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, apparently unpublished physical theory. Only refs given for the so called theory are to the personal webpage of the author. TimothyRias (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Scapler (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted (G7), page blanked by author. Icewedge (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software addon. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original research by an apparent single-purpose account holder and self-described "fan". A basic Google search reveals no reliable sources from which to confirm the notability of the subject. Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the work of some single purpose accounts and has no references at all. Out of curiosity I googled "Weekend Splash Concert" and got a total of 29 unique hits, including several which are actually the same, being scraped Wikipedia content for the seasons as listed here. With no references and no obvious reliable sources, this apparently fails WP:V and WP:N. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO - ie he is not (in the Wiki sense) Notable. The article is an unsourced autobiography. Springnuts (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just some book someone wrote. It gives no assertion of notability. The sources are also completely lacking and most can't even be called reliable sources. The book has won no awards, gotten no press, or anything that would make it notable. If you google "The Bible (A Parody)", the only thing that comes up is a couple stores selling it and that's all. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy as there are some borderline notability claims and the article exists for more than 2 years now but I couldn't find any non-trivial coverage or articles to assert notability that might indicate why the band passes WP:MUSIC, only some tour reviews. SoWhy 12:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the personal opinion of the writer. The first few Google hits for "Indeterminacy problem" either are copies of this article or are about something else entirely. While I agree with most of the conclusions, is this "problem" notable? Does anyone really use the phrase "indeterminacy problem" to refer to this? Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 11:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G7 by author. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy deleted this article on the grounds that the references were inadequate for the boasts made ("rock star"? I don't think so). On the request of the article's creator, I restored the article and asked him to improve the references. He responded in an unhelpful manner. I see that this person does have google entries, but a lot of them are from sources like myspace. Deb (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable self-published book. Review quoted is a customer review on barnes and noble's web site, not a professional review. Google search turns up no reliable sources. JulesH (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. One (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Small primary school that does not assert any notability. Its exam results may be higher than average but that does not make it important or notable in any way. Very scant references as well - including to its own website, and to a home-made one. Majorly talk 08:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as A9. ... discospinster talk 13:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another album by After the Burial. Not self-produced like the other one, but still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. User has been repeatedly recreating deleted content about this band. Graymornings(talk) 07:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A9. ... discospinster talk 13:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly self-produced album by a non-notable band. No refs besides Amazon. Graymornings(talk) 07:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as another bad-faith nomination by a sock puppet of User:Yaneleksklus. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable genre of music, insufficient content, should be merged to funky house at its best.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Man with a huge cock (talk • contribs) December 30, 2008
The result was boldly redirected to Wanted (2008 film)#Sequel. (WP:NAC) flaminglawyerc 17:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFF. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as wrong venue. Please take this to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was a redirect to the page "Energy (disambiguation)". The article had one page that linked to it (Energeia). That page was changed to link directly to "Energy (disambiguation)" instead of coming to "Ἐνέργεια (disambiguation)". The page is now orphaned. Mikaey (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Criteria for speedy deletion met. deletion log. (NAC). NonvocalScream (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be promoting a game mod. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's either a hoax or a dictionary definition, and probably both. Refs make no sense. Graymornings(talk) 05:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy (snowball) keep as well as nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure. --Terrillja talk 06:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO. No sources to verify that she was a serious nominee for the XRCO Award and the other nomination is from a organization not listed in Category:Adult movie awards.--Jmundo (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. (Plus unsourced: the one link is to a website that does not appear to meet WP:RS.) I got a total of 23 unique google hits for the phrase, of which: one was a hit for Wikipedia, 6 were posts in Yahoo Answers, three were irrelevant happenstance uses of the phrase, and three were about Pinocchio. This left 10 uses. Even on the non-WP:RS forums, individuals who seemed to be regular posters were saying they had never heard of the term. — BillC talk 04:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial translation of the Spanish WP article Diccionario Analógico Conceptual, which, like this article, is completely unsourced and appears to be in part original research and in part an advertisement for the Web site zirano.com. I thought of redirecting this to Thesaurus, since it seems to be about a type of thesaurus; but "analogical conceptual dictionary" gets zero hits in Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar searches, so it seems a very unlikely search term. (The equivalent Spanish term gets only 27 ghits—most, if not all, of which relate to the Zirano site.) Deor (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Please don't vote twice, but consensus is clear regardless. MBisanz talk 04:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page in Korean should be deleted because it 1) appears to be a copyvio of a book or some other printed matter (the first sentence in the article) and 2) it's been hanging around WP:PNT past the two-week cutoff. Yupik (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable silversmith. I tried to find reliable sources, but came up empty. Therefore, he fails WP:N and WP:V Tavix (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested on the grounds that "there is proof coming from Jamie Lee Curtis's mouth". Violation of WP:CRYSTAL; this movie is only a project right now. Delete, and recreate once principal photography begins. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No ghits indicating there is a cage fighter named Jack Travers. WP:HOAX. Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of non-notable person. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 03:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does say how they satisfy WP:BIO. He is a mayor and that fits under wikipedias description of a notable person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley844 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um actually for your information the township is 75 years old. Dont talk about something you dont know about. --Paisley844 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some links to the newspapers he have been in. Of course, it is very difficult to get all of them because he has been in numerous papers. Some of them I could not find online so I listed the dates, pages, and newspaper. I am also sorry for being kind of snappy. This means a lot to me and I will be devestated if this doesn't work out. I am very emotional about this and it means the world to me. Sorry for any rude things I may have said.
I cannot find links to the direct articles, just the newspapers. Should I put those on? I also listed some newspaper recognitions on the page, is this alright? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paisley844 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why Did a whole bunch of the stuff I wrote get deleted. It was good information?.--Paisley844 (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Person who does not satisfy WP:Entertainer. RandomHumanoid(⇒) 03:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks fame. Diletodo (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant hoax as far as notability; ghits indicate this is a (bored?) high school kid in Missouri (as does his user page [18]), and nothing more. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies to the author, who is clearly very valuable and knowedgeable contributor. A very interesting topic, but unfortunately fails the criteria for inclusion into wikipedia: the term is a neologism, nowhere found, and the article is an inadmissible synthesis of various geoengineering activities into a brand hot new subject, "hydrological geoengineering", which has zero google hits outside wikipedia. What is more, there is no definition of "hydrological geoengineering", and therefore I conclude that the author's collection of the described projects into a single aricle is his opinion, i.e., either original research or arbitrary collection of information. There is even insufficient evidence that every of these projects is described as "geoengineering" in valid sources. In particular, I seriously doubt that northern river reversal is an example of "geoengineering". I would suggest the author to split the article sectionwise into separate articles, because the information itself is very interesting; it is only it cannot be collected under the neologistic article title. I could have done the split myself, but I don't want to encroach on the credits of Andrewjlockley (talk · contribs).`'Míkka>t 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an emerging field, and there are 2 problems with nomenclature
This work is not novel, but is a new categorisation structure. The alternatives are:
I think the splitting system I've devised is logical and uses established academic disciplines (i.e. hydrology) to group the work. I stress this work is supervised, and in the absence of an alternative workable system, I suggest it stays. Andrewjlockley (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1720049_1720050_1721653,00.html , http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20081001gd.html ) Vmenkov (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3, blatant misinformation. Pagrashtak 03:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of video games allegedly coming out in 2012. WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ran across this article while finding un-Wikied page mentions of an article I'd just written (Brad Lincoln). The article appears to be about a website devoted to high school baseball in the area of Houston, Texas. It seems like a nice enough site, but the article is written in what seems like a very promotional tone, and it's entirely unreferenced. I tried to find media mentions of the site so I could source it and address that issue, but didn't come up with anything usable, and as such I think it fails WP:N, and it should probably be deleted. Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 02:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closing per obvious consensus. — Aitias // discussion 04:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod with two ((prod2)) tags removed. Original research about a video game for which there is no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of either person meeting WP:BIO. Insufficient citations mean both entire articles may be WP:BLP problems. Closeapple (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it also appears to be promotion for the same film:
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:MOVIE. No evidence of having a distributor yet, let alone major coverage. (Nominating related articles Frank E. Johnson and Julianne Michelle in a separate AfD because those two are more obvious.) Closeapple (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I closed the first listing of this discussion as null and void. The discussion got way off topic, and was more concerned with blocking and sock-puppetry and general bad faith. THis discussion is getting a fresh start. To view the previous discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radwan_Dąbrowski-Żądło_Family_(2nd_nomination_-_voided). The nomination for deleting this article was based on lack of notability. The nominator felt that the references provided in the article were not directly relative to this article's subject, but rather more generally to the time and place that this family lives/has lived. I have no opinion in the matter. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has surmountable problems; but, given the documented and referenced antiquity of the family as nobility in verifiable sources makes the family per se inherently notable, in my opinion. -- Exxess (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no idea why notability is even being debated, as it's clearly established in books that are not published online. The family is ancient. Quoting above: "Yes, the the name of the family gives a few hits, ..." Not all verifiable sources should be presumed to exist online, nor should that be the sole criteria. I don't think a deletion nomination is justified on notability claims. There is no reasoning of principles; no argument is required to prove fundamental rules, and this is becoming an unnecessary justification of WP:RS and ((Cite book)). The family is notable. The deletion nomination was made in haste. I don't think it can be sustained on notability claims, unless there is a criteria for notability that is secret. -- Exxess (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło as a family as listed in the article's reference section:
Satisfying notability concerns regarding information regarding this particular family as a family, the following is widely available online: click here -- Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan
Second academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section:
Third academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section, given one is to understand the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged later in history as a branch of the Radwan gens/clan (They were Radwan/Radwanice first.):
Fourth academic publication specifically writing about the family Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski as a family as listed in the article's reference section, given one is to understand the Radwan Żądło-Dąbrowski family emerged later in history from the Radwan gens/clan prior to becoming Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan. This is receding far into history, and that's notable in itself.
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person has not received notice outside his own little parochial community of true believing proponents. He is not notable neither as an author nor an inventor. It is likely that the entire article is set-up mainly as a soapbox. Previous AfD claimed independent sources, but they do not contain any usuable information on the person and certainly don't justify an entire article devoted to him (people who just do Google searches and don't actually read the sources shouldn't be commenting that sources exist!). Also, there were obviously some shill !votes at that AfD made by his supporters. There may be room for mere mention of him in other locations (our future Serbian perpetual motion enthusiasts article, for example). However, we should delete as a violation of biographical notability ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. That there are sources which use this set of words together is not doubted. But what has not been demonstrated is that there are any reliable sources which provide depth of coverage about these words as a collective term. Just because you take any two words, put them in quotes and google it, does not mean that the 4.1 million ghits shows that the term itself is notable. This article is a dicdef, a howto, an essay. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism; no evidence of widespread use. References cited are either generic links to magazine sites (and therefore useless for our purposes), or simply examples of what the author claims are pieces that fit the definition. Fails WP:NEO. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band made two albums on a small label. A few shows opening for Cynic is the biggest thing they've done. I can't find any significant coverage anywhere, not even on the Dutch sites. Their two albums (Shadows (Creepmime album) and Chiaroscuro (album)) are also listed, above. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. Sources have been added since the AfD started and generally high schools are considered notable if their existence can be verified. RMHED (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable school. Article nothing but a repeat of student publicity materials per an earlier version (including earliest version having the same promotional words). Fails WP:N. There is no such thing as "automatic notability" for schools in any guideline nor policy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable? Well-linked? Notable? What do you think? If these articles are getting deleted, I think you're really trying to eliminate all the articles about schools in Malaysia. Are you?--Mark Chung (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, default to Keep. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
subject of local interest only. This is not "Columbus, Ohio-pedia! Pepe Machao (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. One (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO1E and no significant evidence she was truly notable before her death, news stories afterwards do not ascertain genuine notability either. Any awards won are relatively minor and all things considered, fails WP:BIO. J. F. Mam J. Jason Dee (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability; blatant advertisement written by subject. Should also include Deon Taylor in this nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and rename to Paturis Park murders. One (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. Searches on the web turn up the fact that the park isn't notable, just the murders - which are news items, probably deserve mention in an article about LGBT culture in Brazil (or something similar), but the park itself isn't notable. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116.50.78.71 (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. One (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is just about an Indian name. No way it can develop into an article. Salih (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable concept. Sources are nearly useless. One is merely a blog entry and therefore not a reliable source; I have a feeling it's by the author of this article and therefore promoting his concept. The other two (also blog entries, it appears) don't even mention the phrase at all, as best as I can find. This article looks to be promotional in nature, and a Google search on the term (without quotation marks) turns up only the first blog, all other returns do not mention this as a complete phrase. This would appear to be a neologism. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a self-promotion article. No sources, no notability, and not much appears in a Google Search (but they've managed to make it appear as if they get google results via Linked In, etc.). Also, this is an orphan article. Timneu22 (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There were valid comments on both sides of the debate. I was quite taken by Jmundo's comments and considered long and hard. In the end it wasn't the majority of delete !votes that convinced, but the consistent argument from the deleters that Javier Saade wasn't shown to be notable, and that other than promotional material from GEM (copied onto various sites) there was nothing significant about him on the sources given, nor on a search I conducted myself. Notability was asserted in the article by implication that he was the guiding force behind a major financial institution, however this was not proved. Sources from GEM showed that he was one of a number of senior figures. It is also noteworthy that his company does not have an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 01:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability criteria - I cannot find multiple non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources to support notability. In addition, the references provided in the article merely mention his name in passing or are not independent of the subject. Prod was contested by anon editor with no reason given. Somno (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. withdraw by nom; tags placed (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was prodded and seconded, but the prods were reverted by the article creator. I'm bouncing it to you guys under the original prod rationales. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist and Author, unreferenced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, no references found by searching Richard Hock (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted in 2006, still not notable, still has yet to sign with a label, releases their music on their own. There are lots of references, but none of them seems to actually prove notability. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third-party coverage to demonstrate notability, nor can it be presumed since the convention has yet to occur. Only sources are the convention's website and the website of another convention for which it is in a naming dispute with. Original creator is disputing the proposed deletion on the talk page, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Farix (Talk) 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Blanked by user. De facto SNOW, implemented as G7. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created in a promotional tone by a single purpose account, possibly a borderline case of WP:CSD#G11. No sources are found in the article or on Google to prove that this is a notable company per WP:ORG - although, being founded in 1903, it may well be notable, which is why I'm bringing this here. Sandstein 09:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 03:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Written by the subject;this is blatant advertising. Violates WP:NOT. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and salt. One (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a remake of previous deleted material, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti Jewish Arabism, created by banned sockpuppeter MarthaFiles (talk · contribs). User:DGG found this article sufficiently different from the original to be speedy deleted, but it has the same massive WP:SOAP issues as the old one, and various other similar fork articles that keeps on popping up at wikipedia, see Racism within Arabism, User:Pan_arabism, Intolerance in arabism, etc. Soman (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted. Created by serial hoaxer, sockpuppeteer and petty annoyance GMTV Chart Show (talk · contribs), deleted as vandalism. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 01:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't meet the WP:CRYSTAL criteria and fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Renanx3 (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Technically, I could argue that this song meets WP:MUSIC, as it is being covered by multiple artists. If it had been released, I would argue to keep it based on that argument. Right now, neither version appears to be notable, and it's crystalline.—Kww(talk) 23:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, or redir to Tina Moore which has very little content as it is. --triwbe (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]