| < January 27 | January 29 > |
|---|
The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assisting nominator with technical aspects; rationale for deletion to be added here. MastCell Talk 17:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~
The result was speedy deleted by Rettetast (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G12, blatant copyright infringement. AecisBrievenbus 23:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O'Grady is the mayor of a small town, and is a candidate to be nominated for Ohio's 10th congressional district. Nothing spectacular yet. Also, this article reads like a political ad, in which the subject has "a strong history of community service", is "committed to government becoming more efficient", "has been tireless in his efforts to serve the residents of North Olmsted, and will continue to work to improve the conditions for all in Northeast Ohio", etcetera. AecisBrievenbus 23:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails at WP:NOTE. There is no source as well that verifies its notability. So, it fails at verifiability as well. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per A7, specifically, non notable band. This was deleted twice before by speedy criteria. Keeper | 76 23:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a vanity article on some non-notable people. All the references are used from myspace. It's a clear case of violating WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per non-notable activity related to catching fish! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added additional references from easily accessible sources on the web to show that the data included is indeed verifiable, and I reiterate there is no original research included. I guess I'll start looking at adding scientific references if it helps others to understanding the current issues relating to fishing lure development, technology creep and fisheries managementUser: DigsFish. —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11: "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.". This does not preclude a neutral editor writing a neutral, third-party-sourced article on the subject. Sandstein (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising Qaz (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Coredesat 03:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable label. Speedy denied due to apparently notable band Ether Switch but band isn't really notable either. Speedy on Ether Switch was denied only because it was the founder of Nondance Record. So the only claim either has to notability is that the other one is notable, but in reality neither is notable. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, CSD G2 by Malinaccier, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to CSD:G1 this, but I desided it wouldn't be fair for only 1 other person to see it first... ~Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 22:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(OOps, edit conflict already deleted) Dlohcierekim 00:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Drew Peterson Keeper | 76 21:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable and is only known for one event. There are a few sources, but it is only a news story of her disappearance. There is a tag saying that it is partially a duplicate of Drew Peterson, which is is, and also a merge tag there, but I find this unnecessary. Also only three pages have links here, two of which are only lists and the third the link above. Reywas92Talk 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what is to be done with this article. It seems that this is about a painter who was once covered by the Baltimore Sun. Most of the "references" are either broken links, links to blogs, mirrors of that single story, or mysterious links (like a page about weather). All in all, and having googled him, he does not strike me as notable. Goochelaar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hand gesture, no sources to show any notability. Prod removed by anon, bringing to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment If someone could produce at least one reference to establish notability, keep. Otherwise it's a clear-cut case of original research.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an in-universe plot repetition with very limited notability, and is already covered by the Matrix Revolutions movie articles plot section. The one unreferenced "fact" could easily be a part of the Development section of the Revolutions article, and there is no need for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article not only contains "how to" instructions (a violation of Wikipedia policy), but describes how to commit a serious crime. Simply editing the article and removing it would leave it in the archives for others to view. This article should be deleted and rewritten without these instructions. Hellno2 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Articles like these are notable and not beyond saving. Although they walk a fine line to keep edit wars from happening (eg PIT maneuver, edit war free for over 6months ) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vala M (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be non-notable person. Only sources are blogs and self-published. Recreation of apparently speedy-deleted material. Recommend Delete. Dchall1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has similar significance as the pages of Lon DuQuette, Allen H. Greenfield, Richard Kaczynski, and Nema (occultist): they are all notable figures in the field of occultism; they are also all notable figures in the field of Thelema, Aleister Crowley's religious philosophy. Sections were removed that dealt less with area of expertise. His main contribution is a new Journal dedicated to an academic and non partisan stance of Modern Thelema - perhaps an article on this Journal would be more in store than one on its creator? Psionicpigeon (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:SPAM. I agree with Goochelaar, nice work. Keeper | 76 22:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed by author. No assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. No sources at all. DarkAudit (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable column that fails at WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G11/Obvious Spam. CSD tag was improperly removed by author. Renesis (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy for spam removed. Still reads like an ad. No sources to show that this company is in fact notable. DarkAudit (talk) 20:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Non notable neoglism. Prod removed by author without comment. I also declined a speedy of it having no context- it does have context, it just doesn't deserve an article. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy-deleted: non-notable band. DMacks (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination by a new user. On the talk page, they say:
Vintage_Rock_Group is non-notable.
MediaMike (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)MediaMike[reply]
Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 20:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn with no argument made for deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy removed without comment. This page appears to be some schoolkid playing around on wikipedia. DarkAudit (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --VS talk 07:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book; possibly the most obscure academic work ever published on the Buffyverse; queried notability on January 3 and nobody has made any case for it. Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Now, about that cake... Coredesat 03:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax or wishful thinking. Version of article when prodded claims he won a "Young Scientist of the Year" award, which isn't referenced and can't be confirmed with a gsearch. Prod is now contested, award info removed, but search for this name + physics still doesn't come up with anything showing notability. Fabrictramp (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Although the 'deletes' technically outnumber the 'keeps', the arguments towards keeping this particular article outweigh the deletes. Keeper | 76 22:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within relevant articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOT#INTERNET and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Delete Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain your policy suggestions? Isvana (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no independent sources establish notability of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable fictional town, it's only existence in the film Hostage. The only source for info on the town is the movie itself. This specific location is not a notable part of the movie. The page should be removed per WP:Notability. - Gwynand (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as vandalism, third article today by new user that is unverified and wishful thinking at best. . Keeper | 76 21:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax; no references provided, nor could any be found after a Google search. Same editor also created Blindness (U2 Album) and Annhilation tour, both of which were speedily deleted earlier for being patent nonsense. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contested prod; has been copied to wiktionary and is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Nowra, New South Wales. Coredesat 03:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school. No assertion of notability has been made, nor have any sources been provided that could support any claim of notability. Note: The school is already included in the article on Nowra, New South Wales Mattinbgn\talk 19:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. I'd like to note that the frequently-cited WP:NOT#STATS is not, by itself, a reason to delete this article. The rule prohibits "long and sprawling lists of statistics" because they "reduce the readability and neatness of our articles", but allows "using infoboxes or tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." No-one has argued that this article is unreadable or confusing, so WP:NOT#STATS would not seem to apply. Sandstein (talk) 12:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unencyclopedic content. This belongs on uncyclopedia, not here. Its been nominated several times before, the links are found on the talk page. Most of the keep votes use reasoning like "This is a fun page" or "Pages like this make me smile." These are not valid reasons to keep an article around. RogueNinjatalk 19:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for a list. Ask yourselves, what does this article give to people who are researching the usage of "fuck" in film? A good chuckle maybe. A prose article would add information and it would be easier to find sources, I'm sure many people wrote essays on profanity in film, finding a direct count is more difficult though. Also the English-centered, the word "fuck" doesn't exist in other languages, and translations aren't usually accurate. Also in most languages there is not one word like "fuck" that caused controversy in media.--The Dominator (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The list you mention is different because that actually ranks the cities. 2. These aren't "unusually profane films", these are just films that happen to use one profane word many times. 3. Nobody said it gives rankings, the way the info is put together is OR. 4. Well yeah, that is pure original research.--The Dominator (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete author of a redlinked book ranked #186,742 at Amazon.com, and coeditor of another redlink book ranked #881,917 at Amazon.com; no indication that he is notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think consensus is clear. The result is delete. east.718 at 00:05, January 31, 2008
This is a vanity page with major WP:COI concerns. Had I discovered it first, I would have speedied it, however the speedy tag was removed in good faith. It was subsequently readded whence I discovered it in CAT:CSD, but generally a speedy tag shouldn't be applied twice, so here it is. This article should be deleted as a non-notable bio of a living person. Keeper | 76 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper, I am not MoG - just a big fan of his. MoG has had more tournament winnings than about 3 others Smash tournament players in the US. He certainly is a notable figure. I don't see how his field of expertise, gaming, makes him irrelevant in an encyclopedia.Mogowner (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability RogueNinjatalk 18:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourced to youtube, seems to fail WP:BAND or WP:BIO. was blanked by anon, I restored it to go through process here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been tagged at not notable for over a year, and it is indeed, not notable RogueNinjatalk 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not referenced and appears to be largely the views of one individual. The "BUPC" is a small sect of perhaps no more than 100 individuals and the inclusion of this article in no way passes WP:NPOV#Undue weight, in the sense that this was originally part of the page Messiah. The only real reference representative of the views of this group is www.entrybytroops.org, which itself has no publishing information, or even authorship (J.T. Lamb is a pen name). As the pertinent information on this page is already mentioned on the BUPC page, I suggest deleting or redirecting. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally just put some tags on the page, but after some research, I realized that this martial art is certainly not notable, and possibly even a hoax RogueNinjatalk 18:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by Nominator, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Beckermonds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Article was new a while ago and left it alone advising the author that it should be expanded upon to show WP:N. No additions of Notability have been added since and the article was Prod. Prod removed by author without explanation, Reverted and removed again by User:UsaSatsui with the statement "This appears to be describing a geographical location, which are generally considered notable (unless you can show it doesn't exist)." [8].
Delete I don't think that an article with "This town is here between here and here is notable" WP:N requires that there be something more then this. Otherwise, the location of my house will become notable. See Munster, Ontario for an example of what I'm talking about. There's only like 1000 people in the town and if you blink while your driving, you'll miss it... but the article has something that makes it notable. Pmedema (talk) 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD withdrawn as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography--Pmedema (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Yet another player who fails WP:BIO because he has never played in a fully professional league. Delete per ample precedent, including this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not played in a fully professional league, when he does do so, recreate it. There has to be a cut-off point, and having played in a professional league is where the cut off point lies. King of the NorthEast 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Whilst only considered by a few editors the consensus and argument showed a clear call to delete. --VS talk 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded article, prod was "not notbale in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (people) . Google results are just Wikipedia mirrors. Also seems to be a relative of the article creator.". I am disputing the prod because I think this person may have some notability if sources can back up the article's claims, so I feel it should have an AFD. This is a procedural nom (for the moment). UsaSatsui (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are no reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The article is almost certainly written by a relative (probably son) of Sukhdev Singh Jalwerha (the user name is Sunnybondsinghjalwehra and he is from Belgium). Of course, you can keep the article if somebody finds reliable sources like newspapers or journals for claims like "first Sikh in the world to get a political stay as a refugee" and "first turbaned Sikh in Belgium" after winning a major court case. These claims are currently unsupported and there are no reliable sources. Things like leading a protest of 70 people and opening an International Council of Khalistan Branch in Belgium is no indication of notability. I can open an International Branch of Jesusland in Peru today. I can organize a group of 70 intelligent design supporters and protest against teaching of evolution in schools. Who cares? There are no reliable sources for even this. WTF is "Jathedaar of Belgium" appointed by "President Dr. Aulakh"? Khalistan doesn't even exist and therefore "President Dr. Aulakh" and Jathedaars appointed by him are of no significance. And need I mention that even among Khalistan supporters, "President Dr. Aulakh" is recognized as the leader of Khalistani movement by just one small faction. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 07:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to fail WP:BIO. A failed legislative candidate. No evidence of "significant press coverage" of his career as school board trustee. Sounds like an upstanding citizen who had an unexpected death, sad but unencyclopedic. Bellhalla (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was conditional temporary keep for now, and if this does not get translated, please relist this article to the AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is all in Turkish and it have a copyright message at the beggining. I think it is enough to delete it. Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 17:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per limited consensus and precedent. Keeper | 76 01:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BIO. Only one reference listed pertains directly to subject and, as an obituary, seems not to consist of "significant press coverage" of his mayoralty of Bovina, Texas Bellhalla (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BIO. References listed are all obituaries, and don't seem to show "significant press coverage" of his membership on the Laredo Community College board of trustees. Mr. Treviño sounds like he was a nice man and respectable citizen, but not encyclopedic. Bellhalla (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Texas state legislator by that name (Several with last name of "Roach"; none from Houston or named "Joe" or "Joseph"). No Congressman/U.S. Senators of that name. (One senator, one representative with last name "Roach"; neither from Texas or named "Joe" or "Joseph"). Article mayhave started out as vandalism. Bellhalla (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one's been recreated about five times after being speedied so I'm bringing it hear. Non-notable actor who has only had minor and uncredited roles. Fails WP:BIO. Also fails WP:AUTO as it is written by the subject. Redfarmer (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus - Keep. --VS talk 07:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band not seemingly meeting WP:BAND, seems almost like no notability asserted but bringing here as anon declined prod without comment. Google very quiet. tomasz. 16:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's not very much on Google (being that the band is almost 40 years old), but to a niche community - The Salvation Army, they were an important cornerstone of music. As mentioned in their article, many of their songs made it into the every say SA repertoire. I really think this article could grow over time. Why not just give it a chance? It's already had one major contribution. Hobmcd (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep for now and the article probably needs a major rewrite in order to keep up with our WP:MOS. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for NN company Mayalld (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Again,
I'm the creator of the Article. Fairly new to Wikipedia, I must say that I'm a bit confused with all of this, but I still know, this Article is not an hidden advertisment.
This is a well known product, with hundreds of users world-wide. you can Google it, and you will find hundreds of reviews and talks in forums about this. I barely wrote anything about the product, non the less, any hidden or revealed advertising.
I'd be happy if you can mention specifically, what is wrong with my post, I'm more then comfortable with changing or editing it so it will be as objective as possible.
Thank you,
- Nathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan1982 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 January 2008
The result was Delete per consensus. The title Princess (film), according to the disambiguation page at Princess (disambiguation) says this is supposed to be about a Danish film. Since this particular film being considered is not crated yet, the delete opinions carry more weight. Once the "new" ABC Family film is created/verifiable, the disam page needs to be fixed when this page is recreated (and I can only assume it will be). Keeper | 76 01:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Television movie which has not aired and little is known about. Says plot is currently unknown. Recreate when more is known. Redfarmer (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, however probably doesn't meet criteria for a WP:CSD#A7. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. I've userfied BlinkingBlimey's new text, so that he can recreate the article with it. Sandstein (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod (by me) and prod2 (by User:DGG) removed after expiration by anon IP without comment. Concerns were "Non-notable neologism", "neologism at best, fits into "made up in school one day". Encourage a snowball close on this. Jfire (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable neologism; no evidence this had any use outside a small group of internet users. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Jfire (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I just noticed the article wasn't properly tagged as nominated for deletion; it now is. Jfire (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - Keep. --VS talk 07:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, signed in the All American Football League, which isn't playing yet, lack of Reliable sourcing as well, prod removed, Delete Secret account 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was red card. Coredesat 03:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a hoax, but I'm no expert on Italian football. It was created last October. The page name is Reiner Hasan; the article is about Domenico Lammardo. There are a few google hits, mainly in Italian. It was drawn to my attention by Towerman86. Tyrenius (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the article says "occasional child actor", fails WP:BIO JD554 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((notability)) added and removed a couple of times. Would fail WP:BIO at the moment. Montchav (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007 - AFD'd as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability Montchav (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, advertising ~Ambrosia- talk 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notable Press Mentions:
Fortune The death of the desktop
AOL Money and Finance Is Microsoft threatened by Box.net? Should Google buy it?
PCWorld Store it on the web
ZDNet Buh-bye hard drive: Box.net's online storage now directly accessible by multiple Web apps
Information Week Box.net Opens Online Storage Platform To Web Services
Red Herring Box.net Gets $6M, Awaits Google's Move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.153.246 (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 03:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007 Montchav (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007, plus numerus other tags Montchav (talk) 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007 Montchav (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). ChetblongT C 04:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need understanding of Japanese to expand the reason for AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. I'd need more understanding of Japanese to expand the AFDing Montchav (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 07:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. Other than that, I'm neutral Montchav (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. 425 students is pretty small by school standards Montchav (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keeo. --VS talk 07:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007 - previously PRODed, AFD'd as standard. I remain neutral though Montchav (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --VS talk 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007 - AFDing as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007-adding here as per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article rambles and doesn't make a point about importance. --Stormbay (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007-Omnicom merge possible Montchav (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. 2 previous proddings Montchav (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. The Irlandsfronten appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 15:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability on the article itself since March , previously propsed4dletion2007 Montchav (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 07:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. Previously proposed4deletion Montchav (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company does not appear to have a notability that is encyclopedic. --Stormbay (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --VS talk 07:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007-just fails WP:BIO, AFDing per protocol Montchav (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks good sources and fails to establish the subject's importance. Kent Glowinski appears non notable at this time. --Stormbay (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject "Kent Glowinski" is a notable figure in Federal Canadian Politics, the Canadian Legal System, the media, and the Canadian literature community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordonlamontagne (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of minor media mentions does not add up to notability. Vagary (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - Keep. --VS talk 08:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I firmly believe that Les Legions Noires existed and that a small number of bands released records. However, the vast majority of this article constitutes original research as it is unsourced, and is quite possibly unsourceable. I have tried to improve the article, but in the absence of sources I do not see how we can keep it. Obviously fanzines and Internet forums do not count in this instance. Equally, there is no point voting to keep this article if nothing is, or can be done to improve it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (default keep). Considered relisting, but nominator has not cited any valid reasons for deletion. JERRY talk contribs 01:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just some song off Angel of Retribution, not released as a single nor generating controversy or acclaim. It's apparently Priest's longest song, but how is that notable? Will we have an article about the longest-running song by every band ever? Toss it! Howa0082 (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:MUSIC. No sources. Non notable. Delete Metal Head (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 08:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been nominated for deletion before and the decision was to keep. However, since then not a single reliable source (in two years) has been provided to justify its inclusion as a real genre. This means that at present it constitutes original research. I am thus proposing it for deletion again. If sources are forthcoming, it may be worth keeping it (the term is obviously in use as Google will testify, but then many terms are). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non consensus - no discussion - Keep. --VS talk 08:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007-once prodded, declined. Adding here as per protocol. I remain neutral to the discussion here Montchav (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no claim of notability since March 2007. not google's friend Montchav (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't feel that a campus political organization has encyclopedic importance. --Stormbay (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion of NN company by a user with a clear WP:COI Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). ChetblongT C 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN niche-market magazine, which has WP:COI issues Mayalld (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn, non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person known for his "big penis" who achieved some level of exposure because of pranks to him from the Howard Stern Show. There was a profile of him in Rolling Stone but that seems the only secondary coverage he has received. He had numerous bit non-speaking parts in various American and British TV shows and was interviewed briefly in a HBO documentary, but these don't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 08:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=rg424&DepAffil=Surgery. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with numerous bios of run of the mill specialists. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfying per author's request to continue working. The article can now be found by clicking here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated for speedy deletion per CSD A7. I saw it and fixed the attempt at an ((underconstruction)) tag since I thought it was a borderline speedy candidate. The original speedy-tagger came back and removed the tag and replaced it with ((notability)). That being said, no Google results come up for his full name (nor does anything relevant sounding come up for the first and last names). The references also don't seem to be valid. I smell a hoax. Can someone with greater knowledge of Russian history comment? IronGargoyle (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had about this person at университетский Санкт-Петербург ( University of Saint-Petersburg ) during my first year. This person is controversial in Russia. There is no doubt that this person has lived, but whether the background is correct, is unsure. Some link this person to Lenin and Stalin, but personaly I think that is to unsure to be stated. I have send a mail/message to this user: "Myhren" and recived an answer. He would like to extend the article, but was a new user on Wikipedia, as far as he told. He says that he would finish the article later this week, with more references. Maybe we should give the new user some time, but keep looking with it.
Very litle about this person has posted on the web, cause he is not that famous. Maybe in some Russian sircle. I could see if I can dig up my old notes from the university, but would not be able to lay something the next days. Maybe Thursday. Sergey Yevgenyevich (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion-page at Vladimir Riazanov.. Myhren (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge all, I'll leave the job of the actual merging these contents to another editor. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also included in this nomination:
I'm a fan of Thursday, but, let's face it, not every one of their songs is notable, and these certainly are not. None of them were singles, the vast majority are never played at live shows, and they don't have secondary sources to establish their notability. Paris in Flames even seems to have a spam link in it. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My original ((PROD)) reason: Arbitrary list. Are we going to include the group (mathematics) axioms because they are studied in school? DePRODed by an anon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete article, with a redirect in place per below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted for claims of blatant copyright violation, the article was nominated for deletion review where the copyvio issue remained unresolved. The article was recreated in shortened form during the nomination, so while copyvio issues might have been resolved, there are notability and sourcing problems remaining, so community discussion seems in order. My editorial opinion is delete unless rewritten and sourced from independent sources/speedy delete if copyvio issues can be substantiated. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable typography course at institute (ArtEZ Institute of the Arts) that has no article.
Contested prod by anon: "The Werkplaats Typografie is a very notable school in the field of Graphic Design. Students from all over the world attend this Workshop, and a lot of it's ex-students are influential contemporary graphic designers. The Werkplaats (Workshop) has been co-founded by the influential modernist Graphic designer Karel Martens. Ex-students include (and this is a very incomplete list); Stuart Bailey / Dexter Sinister Joris Maltha & Daniel_Gross / Catalogtree Hans Gremmen / Hans Gremmen
I do agree that this article has to be expanded, but deletion would be a loss and plain stupid."
Espresso Addict (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web browser. Fails WP:CORP. Also, violation of WP:COI as the article was written by the person who created the browser. Reads like an advert. Denied speedy because admin felt it could be fixed. Redfarmer (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration talk) 11:25 PM (EST), 23 January 2008
The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a category, if anything. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 21:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable electronic music label. Article fails WP:V Sting au Buzz Me... 12:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable regional neologism JD554 (talk) 11:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person per WP:BIO. The only link goes to a free webpage which is a biography of completely different person with the same name. Dekisugi (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Dekisugi (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Trusilver 08:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stock character from Dungeons & Dragons. There are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability of this "Product Identity". This article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF, so there is no benefit from keeping any of this vacuous fancruft. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone afd-tagged the article (a prod tag had been previously removed) but didn't complete the nomination process. The article's author then left a comment on the empty debate page. I'm just filling the gaps in the nomination process so the discussion can begin. --tcsetattr (talk / contribs) 09:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(the preceding stuff is the original comment left by User:JorgeS on the empty debate page)
delete While it seems the author of this article may honestly just be a little unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards, that does nothing to establish the notability of the subject, and neither do any of the provided references, some of which are not in EnglishBeeblbrox (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic/non-notability. Information about every person who died in a particular war is hardly relevant for an encyclopedia. We don't have "List of Germans who died in World War II" etc. for the same reason. Slarre (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artist without evidence of notability. Page deleted twice before (through prod and speedy), it's time to discuss this once and for all. Among the 52 Google hits[28], none indicate any notability. Most are simply listings of painters, and his homepage. No Google scholar[29] or Google books hits[30] (there are hits for other Philippe Dubois (a rather common name), but not for this one. Has won a minor award, exposition in a local museum. Fram (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as basic notability has been established through references in article and here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. The article does not explain why this person has any notability outside of his subject. He has apparently edited some book and designed some "anarchist logo", but not acheived much more that would deserve an article of its own. Slarre (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Bylund on Anarchism.net argues for his notability in the discussion on anarchism.net's forum, I think it is only fair to bring forth his argumentation for the opportunity to be taken into consideration so I quote:
| “ | I would say this "Slarre" is trying to get my name off the Wikipedia. He could easily make a google search, check my CV, or even read the Wikipedia article to see that I do fulfill the criteria. But something tells me he is not interested. I don't intend to spend any time on this, but consider for instance: Just a few examples from Google: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] Everything isn't available on the Internet, of course. Most of my TV and radio appearances (e.g. a debate w/ Per Wirtén on EU and voting, a debate w/ Goran Greider on ideology, and a discussion with Alexandra Pascalidou on reasons not to vote) aren't on the media corporations' respective web sites. As for my own stuff, I would say it is pretty easy to see where it has been published (apart from the web, in a number of journals and newspaper in Sweden, the UK and the US). But let's have a quick look further. Wikipedia: ...local political figures who have received significant press coverage This is certainly true and it is pretty obvious even from the Wikipedia article; I was in local and regional news media every single week for two years, and appeared occasionally in national ditto as well. I even received a prize for this effort, which is evident from my CV: the Gosta Boman Scholarship. Does that mean it is recognized work? I don't know. But, all this is only "evidence" if you are really interested - not if you are mostly interested in deleting. - Per Bylund |
” |
Keep The design of a logo that has international usuage and recognition, makes him worthy of a mention, and this is far from his only role in politics. I had found this article informative, and had stumbled upon it whilst reading about many other left-libertarian topics, and it helped me locate other useful infomation outside of wikipedia. The article is short, concise and relevant. Lostsocks (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as a notable character and per improvements by Otto4711 et al. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a fictional character that fails WP:FICT (guidline which is disputed) and WP:NOT#PLOT (policy that is not disputed). It contains no out-of-universe information and is a very long plot summary from four different adapatations, but still just that; that does not make it more notable in the real-world. hbdragon88 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedy delete as vandalism by Dlohcierekim . """Numerous reasons cited below confirmed. Dlohcierekim 22:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable WP:HOAX. (from the talk page) All sources which are quoted in the article as referring to "FWF" are in reality referring to rap group N.W.A. All claims are an apparent transcription of similar assertions on the N.W.A article. For a group supposedly founded in the 1980s you'd expect to see more than zero Ghits. Zedla (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete A hoax, and not a very funny one at that. Their MySpace page has a couple songs, they sound like a bunch of drunk teenagers Beeblbrox (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Please note, I did not merge any content, nor will I be. If someone else (non-admin) would like a copy of the deleted material to perform a merge, please ask on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable. A student radio program on a 30 watt college radio station which doesn't show up on the station schedule. No Ghits other than primary sources and nothing on google news. Zedla (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --VS talk 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author. I tried to clean this up a few months ago, but no notability has been established. It was a one-off contest by a quasi-notable magazine; notability is not inherited. As far as the references listed go, the first is a dead link, the second and third are blogs, the fourth is someone's personal website, the fifth is not free and the sixth is to the magazine itself, which can't be used to establish notability. If anything, this should be a redirect to Cabinet (magazine) faithless (speak) 08:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge although "the brick dick" is pretty funny, this doesn't seem very notable on it's own Beeblbrox (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
** MOVE TO KEEP- this has had the 5 days and more, and there is a clear consensus to keep, particularly from the independent users. By independent, I mean people who were not called to come here, or "notified", or discussed it with faithless at some point during this AfD. At the very least, with 10-6 in favour of keeping, and the disagreement being largely subjective views on notability, this would easily get no consensus, if one were charitable to the delete side. In such a case where it's based on personal views of notability, the article should get the benefit of the doubt anyway, especially when it's been improved at each stage of criticism.JJJ999 (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://www.columbiasurgery.org/about/dir_staff.html. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://www.columbiasurgery.org/about/dir_staff.html. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=je111&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article Hu12 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. Hu12 (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://www.columbiasurgery.org/about/dir_staff.html. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that only of these is required to pass WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=jjk47&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Hu12 (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=dj2107&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. fulfils notability cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=dw40&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 12:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:BIO. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to columbiasurgery.org. possible copyvio http://asp.cumc.columbia.edu/facdb/profile_list.asp?uni=mb28&DepAffil=Surgery. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.Hu12 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, no policy or guideline-based reasoning given for deletion, therefore, it is kept by default. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A puzzling page, given that this much effort has been put into an article for the fourth highest award for valor (and even then not always awarded for valor, but meritorious service), when there isn't a similar page for higher awards. But more than that, there is a category for this award already. All this does is include a picture. This page has also become a magnet for people adding the names of relatives, friends, etc.Nobunaga24 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. although a shaky start on COI grounds, independent notability established cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI biography apparently authored by subject's media relations consultant. (Author's only other bio edit was a speedily-deleted article, Neil S. Kaye, admittedly written on a client's behalf; this article follows the same pattern.) The article is completely unsourced and does not demonstrate notability in any single field. While it mentions a number of mildly interesting activities, they do not collectively meet WP:BIO. The only sourced incident is a prank regarding auto registrations that received some trivial news coverage. Author has also inserted subject's name into at least two other articles. Delete. MCB (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by myself and a group of others that respect Jim from what he has brought to the national music retail industry. He is the PT Barnum in the music instrument industry and the Zelig behind the success of so many MIDI initiatives that he has many substantial awards. His recent radio program is the first music / talk program that integrates musical industry equipment (musical instruments) information into how those songs were recorded, and also answers questions about those instruments.
We thought that inserting names into other subjects that he is affiliated with was protocol. Once we showed Jim's article to another notable (DR Kaye)in our area, he encouraged us to do the same for him.
Jim is exceptionally notable in the Musical Instrument industry and secondly Motorcycle Drag Racing industry, where he was seen weekly as the expert for AMA on ESPN and The Outdoor Channel. Yes we know him, and respect him. How shall we create and maintain a good relationship with you. He is incredibly sourced in the Motorcycle Drag Racing industry, but much more successful in the MI world.
We will delete the Dr. Kaye article and abide by your rules. Please don't hurt Mr. Cara for any of this. He deserves a place in this, and we will better address his credibility with references. Newssource19805 (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources for Musical Instrument Industry
http://www.caramedia.com/resume/MI_resume.pdf pages 17-26 has a bunch of reprints
Much of it was in print media. How can we REF this? Shall we ask him to send us things like magazine and newspaper names and print dates
then
http://www.pgmusic.com/review10.htm
http://www.projectbarbq.com/bbq96.htm - here he is listed with the most important in the industry in 1996
http://www.pgmusic.com/review3.htm
Here are sources for Drag Racing
http://www.amadirectlink.com/amrace/SponsorshipGuide.asp
http://www.dragbike.com/news/02-03/020503a.htm
http://www.usridernews.com/past_issues/2005PastIssues/Apr05/National%2065-76.pdf
http://www.motorcyclingwa.org.au/files/Sponsorship%20money%20all%20around.pdf
Newssource19805 (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have looked through all this information and while the subject has certainly done a lot of different things, none of them really seem to be terribly noteworthy. At best the subject seems to be associated with notable people, but that's in itself isn't a claim to notability. Trusilver 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This is Jim Cara, and I don't know where to start here, but I'll just say a few wods and wait for your response. I read all that someone had written here and saw they neglected to write about what originally brought me to the forefront of Musical Industry attention. I was the first person to use modem-modem communications, in the pre-internet days in order to allow long distance composing and collaboration by musicians using MIDI. This was the kickstart to what turned into a colorful and Zelig / Forest Gump style career. I would hate for a overdose of fat to ruin what my contribution to the music industry really was.
How can I assure that this article is correctly edited and put to the best use of Wikipedia. Most of my things were Pre-Internet and not much digital is available for reference.. 76.99.174.254 (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result of the AfD wasDelete. Trusilver 07:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EP by little known rapper at one point linked to Eminem. Only 100 copies pressed. The article also mentions "This album has not leaked" which, as far as I can understand means: nobody but this guy's friend and family remembers it ever existed. Pichpich (talk) 05:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic list consisting of, er... one guitar. No sources, essentially fan folklore. Any encyclopedic information belongs in the Stevie Ray Vaughn article. Delete. MCB (talk) 05:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hold the fort on a close, I'll post a note somewhere some folk who may be able to input some authoritative opinion or refs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, with no prejudice to continuing the debate over "introduction to" articles elsewhere. This is an early close, but a fair amount of debate has already taken place. It is clear that WP:AFD is the wrong venue for discussing "introduction to" articles in general. Suggest opening a request for comments on the issue, or continuing at one of the discussion threads pointed out towards the end of this AfD. The issues specific to this article (such as proposals to merge with Evolution) should be addressed on the talk page for the article, especially in light of the recently attained featured article status. Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to Evolution should be deleted because of inevitable content forking as the article is constantly under pressure to converge to the sophistication of the main article Evolution. There is - almost - no natural constituency on Wikipedia to maintain - let alone to write - a simple straightforward explanation of evolution. 'Introduction to Evolution' is not supposed to duplicate 'Evolution'. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is now a featured article, the AfD template looks a little odd. Time to wrap this up? .. dave souza, talk 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the circumstances surrounding this, embarrassing is how I like it and how I want it.--Filll (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record - I promoted it to FA status because I believe, per the FA nomination, that it meets all the FA criteria. Though I am personally opposed to having 'introduction to' type articles in Wikipedia, FAC and AFD are two separate entities. For FAC we assume a-priori that an article is notable and potentially featurable; by the same token, FA status should not be used as the basis for arguing whether or not an article should be notable enough to keep. Raul654 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not do us any harm, IMHO, to consider whether "introduction to" articles are appropriate on WP or worthwhile. Since this has been one of the most prominent struggles during the FAC process, to get community input on this point is totally appropriate. --Filll (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. No links. Nothing special. Delete Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABC For Kids Video Hits 2. Undeath (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, no claims of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's basically a list of #1s on a non-notable chart on Arirang TV, a Korean channel meant for international broadcast. As it's a trivial list, there's no reason for such a page to exist. It's the equivalent of having a page on #1 videos on TRL. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:MUSIC and WP:HEY due to addition of WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, which hasn't been remedied after almost two months of a notability tag. The only established attempts at notability are invalid: the competition for Young Composers fails #4 for composers and lyricists at WP:Music, and single performances don't fall under any of the notability criteria. SingCal (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. What the deleted article's space becomes is an editorial decision that can be made anywhere, so long as this article isn't recreated. Coredesat 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He wanted to make this the FIFA Player of the Century Page but we kept reverting it so he made it's own page. This page is based on the fact that the creator is mad about the results of the poll. michfan2123 (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you kidding me? This is an opinion piece, it has no place whatever on Wikipedia. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. There is no evidence of notability. Jespinos (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable magazine. No sources. Use caution if using ghits to gauge notability: there is a band by this name, but it is not related. JERRY talk contribs 04:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable street. Just a minor mention of a See's Candy store and a few pictures. Kurykh 04:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no content, just a bunch of trivia lists of things that people see as related to black and white. There's no topic here, so no need for an article. There's already an article black-and-white, but we don't don't want all this junk merged there, as someone recently proposed, so let's just delete it, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment looked at prior edits pointed out by Zelda, even with an introduction, this article is still completely unsourced original research and trivial research at that. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was previously nominated for deletion, but was closed as no consensus. The page reads like an ad and fails WP:COMPANY. Scorpion0422 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a PBS Kids tagline sentence, which is not even remotely encyclopedic. Keeping this would be akin to having articles for every single solitary insignificant catchphrase for every single advertisement in history. There is no room for expansion of this article into anything that would be useful--currently it is a list of three local variants of the same sentence. I never thought I'd see PBScruft, but here it is. Gladys J Cortez 03:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. JERRY talk contribs 23:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof of the museum's notability, except for brief mentions in a newspaper article and on a website, and it fails WP:N Scorpion0422 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small cemetary in a small county in Ontario and it doesn't appear to have any real notability, or any proof of notability. Sure, it's mentioned at a genealogy website, but many cemetaries are. It fails WP:N. -- Scorpion0422 03:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. May be a paper someone wrote for a class, or a summary of one. (note: author removed WP:PROD tag without addressing concerns) FreplySpang 03:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reality show contestant. Hasn't done anything of note since the contest. Mikeblas (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any reliable sources to establish subject's notability; seems to fail WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of this AfD has been left for WikiProjects Arts, Film and Music. Pairadox (talk) 02:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wp:neo, tried to google term got basically nothing. word doesn't seem to exist anywhere except in the books that are cited as references. 9 ghits, none are about lighting, except the wikipedia article, which is hit #1. Pharmboy (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability requirements, possibly has conflict of interest issues, appears to be seeking notability by being on Wikipedia Jeepday (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists mostly of text copy-pasted from the organization's web site. It contains no sources, and I was unable to find anything that would establish notability under WP:ORG. L. Pistachio (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 08:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion overturned at DRV. The article does contain some claim of importance, but it seems to fall short on sourcing. The sources are industry-related and do not seem to be independent, also they do not seem to contain non-trivial information on this person, but merely list him. A broader news search turns up nothing on this guy. So I'd say Delete unless better sourcing is located. W.marsh 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website. Written like an advertisment. Tavix (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only information I can find about this fellow online is a 1999 newspaper article mentioning his hiring by Navigant, along with some directory entries that may or may not refer to the same person—nothing about his artistic endeavors. Seems to be a nonnotable businessman. Username of article creator matches name of subject. Deor (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR No proof of an actual rivalry. Tavix (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge/Redirect to Scratchcard. JERRY talk contribs 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a definition (note sole listed source, a bingo dictionary). Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect as proposed. Sandstein (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about non-existent service. It should be deleted or merged to Maryland Transit Administration or History of MTA Maryland. This page is about a defunct transit agency that has not been in operation for nearly 40 years, but is written like it is one that is presently existing, and is inaccurate. Of particular concern is the external link on this page, which is to a page that gives the impression the agency is operating today, and is the basis for the inaccurate information in this article. It appears to all be a Hoax. Sebwite (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of what appears to be a somewhat marginal musician and producer. No reliable third-party coverage provided and I couldn't find much on the web besides his name popping up here and there. Pichpich (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax. Tavix (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable web-site Tavix (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both, probably could have been speedied per A7 (band). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. No references provided. A search for them only turns up cduniverse sales entry and a metal fan sites entry. Claims open for notable bands, but that notability is not currently present for this band. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because album by same band even less references available than band itself.:[reply]
The result was delete. Coredesat 04:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Story with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Original version said this was a manga; 76 non-wiki ghits for "Beast Slayer" + manga, none of which appear to be about this series. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is a character from the story, with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION:[reply]
The result was Delete. jj137 (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not-notable Tavix (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator, non-notable. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 00:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy for possible smerging. Policy arguments below do not support having this as a separate article (WP:NOT#INFO, WP:NOR) but some of the material may be appropriate in the articles on the individual aircraft. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic essay at best; original research at worst. Indeed, on the article's talk page, the contributor gives his reason for writing it as the apparent absence of any such table in published secondary sources. An impressive piece of work, but not what I think one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Rlandmann (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the the article doesn’t fit existing templates would seem secondary. I did not start out thinking that I would research a subject and publish the results in Wikipedia. I set out to ascertain whether the B-24 did the job being handled by the B-17 as well or better than the older design. Data on bomb loads and range are all over the place, and some reports claimed that the B-24 could carry a heavier bombload faster and farther than the B-17. In order to save other curious souls the trouble of trawling through endless costly books and articles bearing on the subject I decided to write the article in Wikipedia so that others could benefit from my experience. I have not, to my knowledge, presented my opinions but rather have tried to “set the table” with information, backed by excellent sources, for others to pick from.
If anyone of those finding the article worthy of deletion would quote a sentence or two that is “unencyclopedic” I would be grateful. I’d like to grasp the reason for deleting something that I think makes Wikipedia better.Edweirdo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]