The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn). Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed prod, personal essay. Author added a few sources in response to prod, but none of them gave any solid evidence that they were doing anything other than using ordinary English words with their usual meaning. Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC) withdraw nomination[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism with no reliable sources to verify its notability. Looks like something made up in school one day Corvus cornixtalk 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to with The Outsiders (novel), but as it is not clear, what really should be merged, I'll just do the redirects. Interested editors may merge further content where they see fit. Tikiwont (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is mostly a repetition of inuniverse plot details, and this character (and others) are covered with an almost equal amount of depth in the main The Outsiders (novel). Although there has been a film (The Outsiders (film)) and tv adaptation (The Outsiders (TV series)), these do not seem to make these characters notable outside of the context of those articles. NickPenguin(contribs) 00:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also listing the following other characters for the same reasons:
The result was speedy deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4, recreation of previously deleted material, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farewell (band). Spebi 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This band fails to meet WP:BAND Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article is derived from one source, Charlton Ogburn. As such, it violates the NPOV policy. It also misrepresents this chronology as having wider support than it does. The sheer existence of this article is a violation of the undue weight clause, as no sources at all have been provided to show that there is any acceptance of this particular chronology beyond that of its author. Chick Bowen 23:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD Keilanatalk(recall) 23:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mangojuicetalk 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a repetition of plot elements from Over the Hedge (film) and Over the Hedge, and it is also completely unsourced, and the existing Over the Hedge (film) article covers most of this content in it's current state. Also listing the following related character articles:
-- NickPenguin(contribs) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three voice actor interview at cinemablend. Staff interview here with some usable material (porcupines skewering the other animals, what staff members were doing to research creating the characters. Here's an interview with a video game developer, sound-alikes were used for the characters, no direct involvement with (either the film or comic creators) during development. This Jim Carrey fansite article is extremely interesting, it points to more potential material.
The result was speedy delete. Clearly no notability outside of Halo 3, and no content that is germane to Wikipeia; cruft, plain and simple. David Fuchs (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable game extension Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely made-up. J-ſtanContribsUser page 23:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Octa Galaxy page was made to describe the setting of a book that is in the making. User:Chris Nahrgang January 8, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Nomination withdrawn This is a non-admin closure. Whpq (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Doczilla (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination based on restored notability information. Doczilla (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom. Non-admin close. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails wikipedia notability, it documents a period of history of a football team, which no other source treats as a seperate entity. It is intended to mislead the reader into believing it is a distinct team from the current team, quoting team stats unquoted by anyone outside of wikipedia, including players recods and chamionship wins. Even if the content of the article was found to be valid it is inconsistant with the article title Fasach Nua (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a house, without indication that it is notable, like registered historical places or whatever the England equivalent, It doesn't seem to be a National Trust property which seems to be the premier lot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. No evidence given that this is anything more than a neologism -- almost no references, either. May be a WP:No original research issue: without references, it's hard to tell. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Fancruft for unnotable actress.Ra2007 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. The subject received nontrivial treatment in multiple reliable sources. The merge discussion may occur on the article's talk page. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable secondary sources, so this article fails Wikipedia policy on verifiability. The only claim to fame is that the book was written by Michelle Malkin — but by Malkin's own admission, it was virtually ignored outside of the extreme right-wing fringe. In Malkin's own words: "There have been no reviews in major newspapers, such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. Even my former employers—the Seattle Times and L.A. Daily News—have ignored the book. Other than Cal Thomas, none of the big-name Beltway newspaper pundits wrote about the book." Much of the article consists of Malkin's complaints about how the book did not achieve widespread notability. This is not a valid encyclopedia article and is unlikely ever to be one. *** Crotalus *** 22:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article has already been speedily deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe twice deleted article about non-notable football player: he has been signed by a club, but has (still) not played for them. As I recall, this article was first speedily deleted, then later deleted after AfD discussions -[[6]] (No Consensus) and [[7]] (Result: Delete). Nothing has changed, he has still not played professionally, and is still not (in the wiki sense) notable. Springnuts (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced stub with no reliable sources per WP:RS and no evidence of notability per WP:N. Tagged for no references by me, and tagged for notability, two months ago, by another editor. A Google search reveals [8] spam, this article, another country club, spam, Craig's List, etc. This is an ordinary country club with nothing special that is worthy of inclusion into English Wikipedia. This is my second nomination for any article in the past 11 months. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It does come pretty close to G12.--Kubigula (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject, "a world renowned author, speaker and marketing expert", fails notability guidelines. Nearly all references are to business ventures in which Dustin Mathews is involved - those that aren't are trivial. No indication that he has been the subject of secondary source material. His one book, How To Get Rich Working for Free, is self-published. Judging from the subject's website, it would appear that he contributed no more than a chapter to Secrets Of The Real Estate Millionaires, the other title (which is not yet been published and has no listing on Amazon). The creation of Dustball20, a single purpose account. Possibly a case of conflict of interest. Victoriagirl (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources AndrewHowse (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, full of spelling and grammatical errors, virtually no wikilinks, inappropriate writing style (reads more like a magazine article) 52 Pickup (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Consensus is measured against policy and notability is pretty explicit that multiple independent reliable sources are required to assert notability and this article fails this. The debate asserts that the article can be sourced in due course but this misses the point that the sources need to exist in the first place. This has not been established and consequently this falls for deletion. Before anyone starts bombarding my talk page about this close I'd like to place on record that I'm a) a big fan of top gear and b) willing to undelete this if reliable independent sources are provided. Spartaz Humbug! 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topics of each article show no evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" and so do not appear to meet the primary notability criteria. The contents of each article is already adequately covered in several sections of the main article (Top Gear (current format)).
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:
Guest9999 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - I agree that the articles don't really have any current outside sources for notability, but I think that Top Gear has enough coverage that they can easily be found. As for being adequately covered, I personally find the unduplicated information quite useful. Admittedly that's bordering on WP:ILIKEIT, but it seems relevant to me. mattbuck (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Television show. You want to know in which episode a particular event happened you can research it here. There is no variable. It's either right, or it's wrong. And it's right. Furthermore, they are not covered in the main article. These are independent pages, and rightly so, there's already so much up on the main page. Keep it.[[User:KeepTopGear 0:18, 9 January 2008]]— 99.232.250.4 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .
Definitely Keep
The result was speedy close as disruption amplified by good faith. Random832 (talk · contribs) acted in good faith, but it is not necessary to always bring other people's speedy deletion attempts to AFD, especially when the speedy deletion reasons given are not one of our Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. If none of the criteria for speedy deletion apply, simply remove the tag, explaining that no criterion applies. Uncle G (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
procedural, was tagged for speedy deletion with a reason of "Complete work of fiction - No such entity exists" by 212.183.134.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Random832 21:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Local independent parliamentary candidate standing as a "party" - almost no votes, no assertion of notability, not even any references to prove it actually happened. Every UK election throws up many hundreds of such "parties" which have little to distinguish themselves from each other and very few voters who take any notice of them. Err... that's WP:NN. andy (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-league footballer who has never played professionally. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Despite many "merge" opinions, no one has countered the deletion arguments here. I will spare only Jana Morgan (which I will redirect to The Fabulous Five) as it is the only one of the articles to have any real content. Mangojuicetalk 19:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These pages are all about characters, major and minor, from a children's book series, and have no notability asserted with them. CastAStone//(talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. I'm redirecting to word wrap for now but if anyone has a better idea for a target feel free to change that. I'm doing this so that anyone interested can perform the small merges suggested below. Mangojuicetalk 20:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned page, seems more like a HOWTO than an article. It's poorly sourced and seems to be the result of Wikipedia:original research. Its significance as a phenomenon is not explored. In September, 2006, it was listed as a PROD and then deleted. More recently it seems to have been restored. Tony Sidaway 15:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. Slightly funny. Very chauvinistic. Hardly encyclopedic. --omtay38 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a hoax, we're actually celebrating this. By definition, that's no hoax. People have tried to post this in the past, and it has been deleted. How can we band together if we keep being thwarted by people who deem this not to be a legitimate celebration? What makes Oktoberfest a celebration? These are just issues of scale and popularity. I'm not out for personal gain, I just want people to be able to find out about this holiday and know that it exists. Information on the web is scant at best, so this is a good place to start.Jman1783 (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Justin Manzo, author[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. No assertion of notability or discussion by reliable independent sources Trugster | Talk 21:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking current notability and coverage in independent sources. No objection to recreation once notability is established. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasDelete Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable, and article appears to be a marketing strategy Jonwatson69 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response: Candice Jarrett does not fit criterion 1, which states that she must have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." As TenPoundHammer correctly points out, all the sources that report on Candice Jarrett are unreliable and trivial. For example, source 3 claims that Ms. Jarrett had a radio interview with the BBC also has the blatant appearance of a marketing page. The "Power Performers" claim is also highly questionable, as a search of "Candice Jarrett" at Power Performers and College Power Performers yields nothing, despite the website of Candice Jarrett imploring us to "contact Candice's management, Power Performers, at www.collegepowerperformers.com."[12] Additionally, Power Performers claims that "unlike those bureaus who feature a select roster of presenters, we do not have to find bookings for a specific group. Instead, we are free to recommend any and all speakers and entertainers, including those that are listed exclusive with other bureaus and agencies."[13] Translation: "we don't actually have contracts with any celebrities, but we try our darndest to hire them for you."
No other source meets criterion 1's threshold. Sources 1, 2, 5, 11, and 20 come from her personal website. Information also comes from promotional and/or non-notable blogs, including sources 3, 6 (clearly promotional--see here), 7 and 10 (also constitute "Media reprints of press releases" and "Works comprising merely trivial coverage" as described in criterion 1), 14, and 19. Source 4 is another Wikipedia page. Sources 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are online profiles or videos that anyone can create. That leaves source 15; however, merely appearing somewhere on the VH1 website and nowhere on the main alphabetical artist listing means nothing--this same site appears to host numerous other non-notable artists. On said album page, her album rating is "5.0 stars," suggesting that very few people visit. As for source 18, a political blog's single link to her YouTube video for the purpose of mocking her does not constitute "reliability" nor confer notability. In sum, there is not a single source that lends any significance or notability at all; this is far from the multiple independent sources that criterion 1 requires.
Now what about criterion 4, which states that an artist must have "gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country, reported in reliable sources"? I have already addressed the lack of such sources. Anyone with a guitar can take it to France and sing some songs; the presence of reliable sources shows that said singing was actually important. Yet in this case, they are absent.
Criterion 5 states that the artist must have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Yet source 15 reveals that the label for Candice Jarrett's sole album is "Cann," which only lists Candice Jarrett and looks like some unremarkable shell company located in her own hometown.
Criterion 7 demands that an artist must have "become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability" (emphasis mine). I find it highly doubtful that Candice Jarrett is the most important artist in her area, and even if she were, there are absolutely no sources to back up such a claim.
As for Criterion 12 (has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network), find a source besides that promotional blog and prove that her alleged interview lasted longer than a half hour. No other criterion appears to come close, and the aforementioned criteria are a major stretch. Therefore, while it is true that an artist need only to meet one criterion, Candice Jarrett has met none. Jonwatson69 (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response: 1. Please do not leave unsigned comments and then retype your recommendation in bold. It gives a skewed impression of the Wikipedia community's opinion. 2. On that particular album page, a 5.0 user rating is perfect. For a perfect rating, every single person who visited must have rated her a 5.0. If more than a handful of people other than her family or closest friends bother to rate her, what are the chances that no one will ruin her rating by selecting 4 stars? Pretty low. 3. If anything, I would think that broad declarations that she meets all those criteria would be lacking facts and evidence. For someone who is "clearly noteable" [sic], it sure isn't clear. 4. The latest source you included has numerous problems. First, most of the article is unavailable to those who haven't subscribed. Second, it looks like nothing more than trivial coverage by a Syracuse paper of a Syracuse-hosted state fair. If Wikipedia included articles on every state fair performer across the country, it would be overrun with irrelevance. Third, the article is dated September 1, 2005 and states "she'll play the state fair's Coliseum stage at 1 p.m. Friday and Saturday," yet Candice Jarrett states, "on 2 August 2005, Candice Jarrett performed at The Great New York State Fair." Which is it, and as a corollary, can any of these sources be trusted? 5. Thou dost protest way too much. On Candice Jarrett's history page, you responded to a ProD by removing it and remarking "subject appears to be a biography about a noteable individual" as if you were some disinterested observer stumbling upon the page and giving your unbiased opinion. Yet your passion for this topic, your ability and strong desire to "help out" in "fixing" this article, and the singular purpose of your user account suggest a conflict of interest on your part--see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Jonwatson69 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much assertation [sic] of notability here. The articles are poorly written, and I can't see at first glance if the band are notable (Google searches are unhelpful with a name like this) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD tag added to article by Floaterfluss (talk · contribs) but nothing more done. The creator of the article added the comment below to the empty page here - which is an exact copy of what the article says. I can probably guess the reasons for nomination - something like spam, content, notability, that type of thing. Skirts CSD on all of those, anyway. Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow list that I don't see going anywhere.--SeizureDog (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 19:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails WP:V and WP:RS. No sources at all are cited, nor is any explanation given of how this book is notable. A brief search fails to turn up anything worthwhile; Google has a few hundred hits, but nothing that really looks like a reliable source. JSTOR shows no hits at all. Unless someone comes up with a reliable third-party source that discusses this book, the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both details on talk. JERRY talk contribs 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer; his best claim to fame appears to be having been part of a band called The Rising, which put out one two albums on a major label and then got dropped and vanished; I haven't seen evidence that they actually meet WP:BAND. I will also be nominating his iTunes-released solo album. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mjf08 (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
08.06.2003
THE RISING ON TOUR NOW! Don't miss THE RISING's fall tour, kicking off in Los Angeles on August 7th at The Roxy (http://www.theroxyonsunset.com/)!
For the full tour information and updates, check www.therisingmusic.com
Comment: The article has been completely overhauled since the AfD and and addresses (with verifiable references) many of the WP:BAND criteria (both as 'The Rising' and independently).
The Speedy Keep vote stands as the open AfD is causing confusion in various forums and American Idol (season 7) starts tomorrow. In any case it wouldn't be the first time an article has been kept on the basis that it's better to keep something that might not be notable than to delete something that might be. Mjf08 (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete The absence of reliable external sources is pretty much fatal to the article. Not just for notability but also for verifiability. We can't do the merge because the information can be removed for lack of sourcing. The only outcome per policy is delete but I'mm happily undelete this later as and when some sources do emerge. Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, all references are to the organization or its "parties". No independent coverage shown. Argyriou (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Reading it makes me think it's a hoax, especially since google returns only 8 hits, most/all(?) mirrors. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Non-representative team, precedent for deletion. Woody (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-representative "national" team that has only ever played one friendly game. See AFD for Normandy national football team for a very similar case fchd (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a game made up by four students. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. There was a prod on this article shortly after creation, but it was removed with no reason given. Mysdaao talk 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article. It's just a list of people in a table. This should be in University of Florida as a table and not exist separately as an article. miranda 18:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD A7 — Caknuck (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Hasn't done anything noteworthy. I cannot find anything on google of importance or notoriety. Furthermore, the article was created by User:Mattc6735, and that was that users only edit. Is this just a case of self-promotion and over-promotion? Kingturtle (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. the wub "?!" 23:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No significance at all. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns! I think we should keep it. El Buscón was one of the first picaresque novels, written by the very well-known poet and playwright Francisco de Quevedo. I do need some time to expand it so that it matches or at least comes close to matching the length of the Spanish Wikipedia article on the same subject: which is at: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Busc%C3%B3n Thanks! --Polylerus (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nominator changed his opinion after new sources were added. Fram (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, prod was removed with a claim that the external links satisfied that, but they do not. Ifctv is 404, techcrunch and geekentertainmnet are blogs and do not pass WP:V and can't be used to establish notability. The code project is not independent of the subject and can't be used to establish notability. The only thing presented in the external links which is reliable is the wired link for which there is a grand total of 140 words on consumating. This is hardly significant coverage. Crossmr (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and salt. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, WP:NN. Was a redirect to World of Warcraft, but that has been reverted several times. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had nominated this for speedy, but was declined. The page simply details his work as a local councillor and support for a local MP. Since the claim for notability is limited to local government I'm nominating for deletion as per the guidlines for biographies WP:BIO which state "just being an elected local officia... does not guarantee notability." BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability as per WP:BIO. The relationships with other notable people are irrelevant as notability is not inherited WP:NOTINHERITED and the relationships are purely family, rather than working, and while Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences may be notable again, that does not confer notability on people associated with it. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The text is mostly copied from www.imf.org/external/np/mae/mft/sup/part1.pdf . It should have a been a speedy delete. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Accounting Standard is tools to implement and measure corporate governance quality." Pure original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And hence it is good if some one write about Standard setting body etc. and hence the article should continue to enrich the article. AS are more precise compared to concepts. No set of rule can be absolute precise. Rules are made up of language, a social science; and hence some subjectivity is expected in Accounting Standards, but the limits the options in choosing a policy. AND THEREFORE THE ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTING STANDARD SHOULD NOT BE DELETED. It provide a platform to pool of knowledge.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Those involved are either red links or of unestablished notability. SilkTork *What's your point? 17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. Non-admin closure. Hnsampat (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an obvious hoax. No other refernces found. Boson (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. BLACKKITE 17:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring that the article is clearly POV and needs a major re-write the simple fact is that served a short while as a local councillor and would fail to be notable according to the WP:BIO guidelines. You could argue that notability is derived from the fact that he was, controversially, a British National Party councillor, but this is only one episode and doesn't confer notability as per WP:BIO1E BlinkingBlimey (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Beackon would not be included had he not been the first extreme rightist to be elected to a public post in Britain for very many years. The campaign ending in his removal also upset the political balance in Tower Hamlets. Since then the BNP have made gains in other areas becoming an increasing political force. In saying that you believe this to be POV (which I do not think it is)you appear to say that this is not a ground for deletion ("ignoring"). Beackon is notable because he was the first, although subsequent BNP councillors may be of little interest individually. Whether or not the BNP may be described as fascist is a continuing controversy. However Derek Beackon was formerly a member of an openly Nazi organisation - The British Movement, which would have entailed his swearing an oath to Adolf Hitler. Streona (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep- content issues should be worked out on the talk page. Friday (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion -- article is too off balance for a bio, and suffers from undue weight b/c of the indictment section which takes 50% of the article. --Jkp212 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this no-name guy to Richard Nixon is faulty. It's not appropriate to have a BLP of a little known individual be comprised of 50% indictment. If you want an article about that event, then create it, but it should not dominate this man's bio. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My sincerest apologies to Nyttend. This editor appears to have an inpeccable history here on Wikipedia and I clearly failed to assume good faith on his part in characterizing the editor rather than the effect of the edit. I nonetheless think this article stumbles into a very dangerous area and I am temporarily removing all references to the charges according to WP:BLP, specifically "Do no harm", for reasons I will place on the talk page shortly. Meanwhile, please do not restore any material related to the charges until we reach agreement here or get a professional opinion from a BLP reviewer.riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Article was clearly based on http://www.thuringowa.qld.gov.au/council/message/biography which makes it a copyvio. Spartaz Humbug! 10:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a non-notable mayor of Thuringowa City Council. Was one of 15,481 people to get a Centenary medal, and has been major for a long time. Appears to be part of a walled-garden of articles relating to the City of Thuringowa. Twenty Years 16:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1: [20]
2: [21] (see number 8)
3: [22].
This wasn't hard and i was not going to go looing at the other 200,000+ links i found buy typing in his name on Google —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep (talk • contribs) 05:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Almost everyone involved is a red link. SilkTork *What's your point? 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC) SilkTork *What's your point? 16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If the article creator wants develop this article further and wants to userfy this article he/she is welcome to leave me a message on my talk page to request for userfication. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unformatted listcruft with almost no context. In the wrong place - should be in the d20 NPC Wiki. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I don't agree at all that we should discount sources simply because they are not on-line but significant concern about sources has been raised and its unusual for a software suite to only have offline sources. Given the concerns about possible COI and unsubstantiated sources the result is delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Vpmi. Was speedied previously under WP:CSD#G11. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a fictional character has no references, and in particular no reliable secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The article is made of in-universe material and trivia, so there is no argument for having a separate article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Pagrashtak 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. From article: "A theme song has already been made for this beachy utopia. An elite group of singers known "Funkettes" perform with a lead male singer, usually one who is dashingly handsome." --omtay38 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep nom withdrawn, WP:SNOW. JERRY talk contribs 03:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence to suggest that the school is notable, or that significant coverage exists in independent sources. Merging some information into UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ColneBrightlingsea, the town in which the school is located, might not be a bad idea - but there does not appear to be any independently sourced (or sourceable) information to merge.
*Delete as nom. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spartaz (talk • contribs)
While the Happy Tree Friends series as a whole is probably notable, I really don't see any evidence of the same being true for individual characters. This article has no references at all, third-party or not. Most of the other character articles are in similar states, but this AfD applies only to this single article; per Template:AfD footer (multiple), "...for group nominations it is often a good idea to only list one article at afd and see how it goes, before listing an entire group." There was little point in going to the trouble of a mass nomination before seeing if deletion was feasible. Powers T 15:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was There doesn't appear to be a groundswell to delete this article and the policy looks like it may have a few kinks to work out. As such this can only be no-consensus but the lack of reliable third party source suggest that this could be relisted as soon as a consensus on this kind of article is established. Spartaz Humbug! 11:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not assert notability WP:BIO as a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. The article seems to claim notability as a council Leader however the links all seem to be campaign pages rather than independent sources and I have not been able to find any sustained coverage from independent sources that justify a claim of notability. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, delete per WP:NEO and the fact that the article consists of nothing more than a definition. Mr Senseless (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that this is some sort of hoax or someone teasing their mate. There is indeed a person by this name born on this date but I can't find anything about him being a poet. The purported source link is dead and the library system comes up empty. The purported award doesn't even exist, as far as I can see. Then there's the inherent implausibility of someone starting a career of "underground" poetry with gothic titles like Death Poems and Screams of the Raven at the age of 5. The article is its author's only contribution. Haukur (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus? I don't like closing AfD's as no consensus (it's the closers' duty to check arguments against policy, and usually one side has policy backing it up), but this is, well, a no consensus as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Em? Utterly unreferenced - utterly subjective. We are not a jokebook. Were this an article reporting studies of national humour, that would be one thing. But a list of jokes is a) unmaintainable b) unverifiable. In any case I suspect variations of many of these jokes are told across various nations. Docg 14:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP To remove this would be utterly ridiculous. The jokes of the GDR are indeed an insight into the GDR's own unique culture. Many of these jokes - especially those with regard to Honecker and the governing authorities throughout the GDR's history - would never have been allowed to be told outside one's own house for fear of imprisonment fo enciting anti-Socialst behaviour. Therefore, the jokes would never have been formally recorded. Furthermore, the jokes are very GDR specific and as there is very little accurate literature / information in circulation with regard to what life in the GDR must have been like this page offers an interesting and unique insight into the GDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.58.160 (talk • contribs) 03:57, January 14, 2008
The result was Keep This doesn't seem to be the usual kind of local pol article but being a vice chairman of the tories isn't exactly an exclusive club. However this is clearly a notable person although some sources would be nice. Spartaz Humbug! 11:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for nominating is that it failed WP:BIO, it is a biography of a non-notable person and the guideline states that local politicians and candidates for office are not automatically notable. The article asserts notability beyond this because Margot James is an 'out' lesbian and because she is an 'A' list candidate. These reasons resulted in an 'keep' in the previous AfD discussion in August 2006. I do not believe that the intervening period has proved notability, while lesbian and gay Conservative candidates are still a rarity it is over 15 years since Michael Brown became the first open homosexual Conservative MP and the fact that she is an 'A' list candidate is solely a reflection of a political party's selection process, which I would contend should not confer notability (e.g. winning a primary in the US would not confer notability to a candidate who subsequently loses). BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established since Aug 2007. Doesn't seem to fit wp:bio guidelines for pornographic actresses. Vinh1313 (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per the consensus below. Brings up an interesting conversation at WP:OUTCOMES. Certainly no bias against recreation if his career advances further in a way noted by reliable sources, or if concensus on the inherent notability of his position changes. Pastordavid (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO, which specifically states local politicians and candidates for office are not automatically notable. The article fails to assert notability for anything else and reads remarkably like his own website. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, I interpret these borough councils to be sub-municipal bodies. I am a strong proponent of keeping articles on municipal councillors, but this seems a little far. Delete, although I'd be happy to reconsider if I'm misinterpreting anything. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. A search for "Baloch Students Federation" -wikipedia retrieves 5 links. Kingturtle (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography as per WP:BIO which states "just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". The notability claim would perhaps be that she is the youngest person appointed to an executive position in a UK local council, but there is no reference to back this up (as per WP:V) without this it should be a speedy delete. Even with this I doubt it's that notable. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Person of no importance, one site mentions her on Google. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 13:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. The basic claims to notability are that he's a councillor in Ealing who has unsuccessfully contested a Parliamentary seat. This clearly fails WP:BIO, which specifically states "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability." Nothing outside of his political career even has a whiff of notability. The page only has one substantive editor and is orphaned (if you exclude category pages). It may well be a candidate for ((db-bio)) but I suspect that would be contested. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 13:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Hut 8.5 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be a strange mirror of Laura Harring (correct name for this person). Situation seems a bit strange & I haven't been around Wiki much for the past few months (thus not sure how policies have adapted lately) so thought I'd bring it here as a first step rather than attempting to speedy or prod it. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 12:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Poker strategy. Note: before initiating a fly-by delrev, please consider the following: The article evolved during this debate. Much of the debate centered around how to source and stubbify the article, where this was done, all those votes are given far less weight after-the-fact. After the action was taken, the new sourced stub looked to several of the participants like it was redundant to Poker Strategy. The concensus formed around redirecting there seems quite clear. This is a case where counting the bolded words from 6 feet away can mislead you to conclude that the closing admin got it wrong. Read carefully, please, before you object. JERRY talk contribs 23:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense, unless I'm mistaken? There have been a dozen edits since 2002. this one must die. BillDeanCarter (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 11:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography. While the article claims multiple competitions won, there is no claim to competition for the country or at the highest level of the sport. No sources provided, although a Google search provides a number of relevant hits. A prod was removed without improvement to the article. Delete gadfium 10:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 11:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neogolism. Article fails WP:V, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT and has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real-world significance. Gavin Collins (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete There is no content worth merging. A redirect to whatever NPOV title we get for this as suggested by Uncle G is likely in order. But there's nothing worth salvaging here and Uncle G's article is not yet in mainspace. Uncle G's suggestion is also highly relevant and should be taken seriously. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism not found in any major English dictionary. --Mfugue (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, noting that there doesn't seem to be an article for the album or the band.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Song by non-notable German hip-hop group. Only claims to notability is that it was played by a "youth radio station" and was sampled by a notable Romanian hip-hop musical group. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a notable company but there's no non-wiki ghits and very few for its parent. Can anyone verify this article? MER-C 09:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--69.252.247.85 (talk) 09:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Will also make a slight adjustment at List of Japanese Urban Artists--VS talk 10:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator, 220.253.8.139 (talk · contribs), writes: There is no such term as "J-Ubarn, J-hiphop, J-soul, J-rock" or whatever. This article is POV, and utter nonsense. Furthermore there are no references, and the term is not used in Japan for music at all. In fact, J-urban is a term used by design company Sumimoto.
Any Japanese popular musician is classified as J-pop in Japan, they are then sorted into their main genres. Such as the group Orange Range being listed as Pop/Rock/Mixture by HMV [36], the largest retailer of music in Japan.
Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as not meeting the criteria of the relevent notability guidelines. Pastordavid (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self Promotional & Non-Notable (or lack of notability locatable in a Secondary Source). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Unsourced bio also not Verified. Spartaz Humbug! 12:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially non-notable performer. Googling for him yields no results that are related to anything, and there's no listing on IMDB or NNDB. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I used to be in the choir with Michael. He was a great singer and should definitely be noted. You should try and google Paulist Boy's Choir. However, they have changed to a mixed choir so I don't know how much that will tell you. I also found a small amount of information on him at this website: http://www.boysoloist.com/artist.asp?vid=3508 and http://www.boysoloist.com/artist.asp?VID=1315
Hope this helps!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.41.34 (talk • contribs) 17:57, January 15, 2008
The result was DElete Spartaz Humbug! 12:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potential WP:HOAX. Googling for "Jieming Unit" yields no hits. Potential attack page on someone named Jieming? Either way, the page fails WP:RS and WP:N. Bundling another related page that was created by the same editor. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SayHeyKid999 (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Probably a hoax or something. Ask this user about it, apparently one minute is too much effort to deal with a contested prod properly and list it here, so I'm doing it for him. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close in favor of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oxymora 2. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated and voted for deletion nearly 3 years ago, a list full of OR and personal opinion, never complete and certainly able to be merged with Oxymoron. Jmlk17 06:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that this movie even exists, which suggests this is a hoax article. The article contains a link to a spoof YouTube trailer. Proposed deletion was removed with no edit summary. Bovlb (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 12:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this fails WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#ADVERTISING, and due to this articles resemblance to a DVD Booklet, this article fails WP:NOT#GUIDE. The article has no references of any sort, fails to assert notability, and has received only minor improvements since its inception, almost exactly a year ago. Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 05:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all Spartaz Humbug! 12:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Four self-released albums by a band whose article was deleted last year: AfD ShelfSkewed Talk 05:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Dchall1 on the grounds that it fails WP:MUSIC. Since this has survived an AfD before, I think it should go through it again rather than simply get prodded away. My opinion is pretty much the same as it was in the previous AfD (keep). - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Restore to redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merely a definition of an Internet slang word. Merriam-Webster confirms the diagnosis. MER-C 05:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted per WP:CSD#A7. The only claim for notability of this person ventured was her medical history. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was a declined speedy and by the decliners comments, he would decline as a prod, too. Aside from obvious BLP concerns here, the lead refers to her as a "lesser known wife, mother and homemaker". Her claim to notability is that in 2001 she was the fourth person that Duke University Medical Center performed a procedure on. Note - she wasn't the fourth ever - she was the fourth ever by that hospital. The procedure was first done in 1983. While it's a good thing, having a lung transplant doesn't make you notable. SmashvilleBONK! 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - The user has been nominating redirects for deletion and seems to have messed this one up, no harm done though. It would appear the user meant to nominate the redirect "Edmund rice camps" for deletion not the article. Message left on user's talk page. Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a long list of unnecessary, obscure and/or misspelled redirects that include improper use of quotation marks. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax, a neologism and/or vanispamcruftisement. Merriam-Webster doesn't list it and there are only 207 ghits for this context. MER-C 04:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. External links are to LiveJournal pictures, and are broken anyway. Google gives back 3 results, 2 of which are from WP. GlassCobra 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non verfiable. — Xy7 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any proof that this is a real school district. There's a Huntington Local School District, but it's a significant distance away from the Cincinnati metro area. School districts appear generally considered to be notable, so I'll withdraw it if someone can find convincing proof of its existence. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable; written in a spammy tone; only 'reference' is the school website. -- Mentifisto 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged with ((confusing)) and ((context)). It is written like some sort of internal report, which assumes widespread knowledge of the matter from the reader. Frankly, I do not see any encyclopedic value to this, nor do I see where this is going. The author made his case on the talk page, but I am utterly unconvinced. I suggested that Wikisource would be a better place for this, to no avail. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 11:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied as recreation of previously deleted material per AFD of 2005. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable local street in northern Toronto. Not a main thoroughfare, no historical relevance. Suttungr (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. If notability can be established, the article can be restored. — Scientizzle 16:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This theatre company fails WP:CORP as it has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notabilty outside its local theatre scene.A search provideds lots of Ghits, but nothing more than routine theatre publicity and PR releases. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:HEY effort from User:Blathnaid. GlassCobra 04:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Living Water International. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to insufficient reliable sources (i.e. only one, which hasn't been verified yet either). Fram (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:WEB notability requirements: Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, won a well-known and independent award, or distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators. Article has been tagged requiring notability since April 2007. References are primary sources or un-verifiable sources such as forum posts. Breno talk 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm reviewing the article references today to ensure we have WP:RS independent, reliable secondary sources for WP:V verifiability, and therefore pass WP:WEB notability requirements. The Knucklebones article I'm not able to confirm (anyone who knows where an online version of March 2008, p. 28 please let me know). As I mentioned above Board Game Geek articles [41] are written by one of the show hosts. Fun Again Games [42] is where they host their RSS feed [43] and the page is a html render of their show feed. Board Game Geek Guild [44] is a fan forum site managed by one of the show hosts. Gift Trap [45] is one of the show hosts reviewing their site "Here’s what Tom has to say about GiftTRAP". Cineplexity [46] is again a review from a show host about a different site. Finally, back to Board Game Geek forums [47] thread. Apart from the Knucklebones article, which as I said me personally is not able to confirm, the other references listed do not stand as indepentent, relable sources. As verifiability policy states: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
If criterion 1 is being claimed of WP:WEB The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself the only reliable source may be the Knucklebones hardcopy article. Even then this would not meet the requirement that multiple works are published.
If criterion 3 is being claimed The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators ... an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution... Footnote 7 of WEB gives an example of this use, being The Ricky Gervais Show podcast being distributed by The Guardian British national newspaper. This criterion was not designed for websites who merely clone an RSS feed to be considered as an independent distributor. Otherwise Podshow, Indiepodder, and Feedburner would always be cited as an indepentent distributor for every show out there.
I still stand behind my nomination that this article does not meet verifiability policy nor notability guidelines. --Breno talk 02:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising or other spam without relevant content, Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, Apparent vanity article, No evidence of notability, Sources and external links are only tangentially relevant to subject of this article. - Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#The_True_Snow_White -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a totally nonnotable band article with no assertion of notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unintelligible, non-notable item. Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn --JForget 02:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, I don't see any evidence this is actually a real word. There is a subscription citation provided in the last AfD, but it doesn't speak about the origin of this word at all. As far as I can tell from a cursory google search 10 pages in, this is a case of something made up at school one day. I haven't seen a single result yet which could be used as a reliable source. There is a claim its in several dictionaries, but I certainly don't see it at dictionary.com. The only other argument I really see on the previous afd is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which isn't really a valid reason for keeping an article.Crossmr (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep since nobody here wants to have the article deleted and this is indeed not the place for merge discussions, which may be continued elsewhere, taking into account that there is no imperative that different forks need to have different articles. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is a good branch of Swiftfox and Iceweasel, this article merely repeats the content of the Swiftfox article, but mentions the fact that it is "fully free". I think this would be better off merged into Swiftfox or Iceweasel's article. ViperSnake151 02:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the page does look like a copy of the Swiftfox page, Swiftweasel is a very different product and, I believe, should have its own article. If anything, the article needs a bit more information about what makes Swiftweasel unique. I use Swiftweasel primarily because there is a 32-bit build made for 64-bit Ubuntu that allows the Sun Java Plug-in to function. Swiftfox does not. By the same logic, Iceweasel should be grouped with Firefox. Dan Forward (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a 64 bit and 32 bit Ubuntu user, I strongly disagree with deleting or merging. Here's why: - Swiftweasel has 64 bit builds. It is the only Mozilla Linux build with 64bit builds. - Swiftfox is a proprietary application under a proprietary license and is not open source. It doesn't contain default extensions. - It has its own settings directory while Swiftfox uses the Firefox settings directory. - The Swiftweasel project now also builds Swiftdove; which is an email client, making it the first build to create a optimized build of a mail client.
I use Swiftweasel primarily because there is a 32-bit build made for 64-bit Ubuntu that allows the Sun Java Plug-in to function. Swiftfox doesn't. If anything, Swiftfox and Iceweasel should be considered for merging under Swiftweasel. --Guilden NL (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use Swiftweasel, over and above Firefox as it's more inline with use of the end user. There is lot's of features to it that's different from other versions, and it has 64 bit versions that is being tweaked all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B647888 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is simple. Firefox has a list of forks. Swiftweasel is one of those forks. It is a different fork from the forks you mention. Therefore it must be in a different article from the ones you mention. The structure of those articles should be very similar, but the content should differ in the parts where the forks differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.117.23 (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If does not violate the copyright of any other article, there is no reason to be merged into firefox ,swiftfox, iceweasel, since they are different builds and "products". Tblu (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep JoshuaZ (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This aricle has no reliable sources except the the Oregonian interview on his views on Cascadia. If he weren't notable, his views wouldn't be notable. Most of the sources are his own web site. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | I've been sent this hilarious spoof — http://zapatopi.net/mindguard.html — from which I give you an example of the delicious pseudoscientific language they have invented:
Yep, I'll just bet that if you use this device, not a single shred of mind-control signal will get through to you! And those deep-burned memetic patterns will just be gone, gone, gone! I don't know who got this clever hoax together, but it's obviously someone who is familiar with the kind of nonsense that Lewis Carroll so well expressed when he wrote of borogoves, mome raths, and slithy toves…. |
” |
“ | Late last year, University of Connecticut professor Donald Leu asked 25 Connecticut seventh graders to evaluate a website on the endangered Pacific Northwest tree octopus (Octopus paxarbolis) as part of an online literacy survey. What he learned may shock you.
According to what little scientists know about it, the Pacific Northwest tree octopus is an amphibious species restricted to the temperate rainforests of the North American Pacific coast. The arboreal creatures abandon their coniferous homes each spring and migrate to the waters of Puget Sound to spawn. Sadly, years of logging, urban growth, overharvesting during the nineteenth century for hat accessories and depredation by its natural predator, the sasquatch, has driven this species to critically low levels. Of the 25 seventh-graders identified as their schools’ best online readers, 24 recommended this bogus website to another class that Leu had told them was also researching endangered species. In other words, they bought the tentacled tree-hugger hook, line and sinker – fooled by the scientific-sounding text, the photos and the e-mail address, Leu said. Even after they were let in on the hoax, most of the students had difficulty deciphering the clues that betrayed the site’s fictitiousness. Some still maintained that the octopus really exists. The survey is part of a U.S. Department of Education-funded research ... |
” |
“ | STEP 7: Teach the Online Comprehension Skills of Locating Information and Critical Evaluation Critical Evaluation: Use sites such as Save the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus (http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ ) | ” |
The result was delete both. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable indie rock label. The label's founder, Robert Ellis Orrall, passes WP:MUSIC with flying colors (incidentally, the name of his last solo major-label album). However, none of the acts on the label seem to be notable, except for be your own PET, who have charted in the UK. Just one notable act out of several seems to indicate that this label fails WP:ORG. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close as disruption. The article isn't a copyright violation. Text written in December 2004 cannot possibly be a copyright violation of a document written in February 2007. Please pay attention to document dates and edit summaries, and stop these repeated nominations. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a Copyright violation of http://jamaicawells.com/JWSGlossaryofTerms2007.pdf Ohmpandya (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as obvious hoax. GlassCobra 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability, cannot find anything for this "most revolutionary guitarists of his time", only source given is MySpace VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 01:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no article for 'Pause Kurze', google barely displays anything. I don't think she is really notable. -- Mentifisto 01:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to pass the notability test. An assistant editor of a newspaper who writes a blog. Sent here instead of prod because there could be something I'm missing. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Nothing to merge (or already merged).
(Disputed PROD) There is no need for a high school speech and debate team to have an article that is separate from that of the high school. THis team is very active, but so are teams at many high schools. I can't find anything that makes this one stand out from the rest. Most of the material that is here is already duplicated at Pinecrest High School, but a comment on the talk page makes me believe that a merge/redirect or merge/delete would be a contentious move without a little more discussion from the community. Joyous! | Talk 00:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys really think this article is taking up too much of wikipedia's precious server space, feel free to delete it, but personally I think Wikipedia could spare the space for a few of these teams to have pages... A lot more information WILL be added to this article as it is collected, but if this article is deleted, the information will simply have to be posted on the page for the High School,, further increasing the size of the already "substantial" section. The team, I would add, is known widely nationally, and is far more well known than the school itself and probably the town of southern pines as well (not to mention the hundreds of more obscure stubs that can be found lounging around in here). If, however, the powers that be are still calling for deletion, I have no power to stop it, so do as you will. B3RKtalk | contribs 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Seems to have become better referenced since AfD nomination, and no consensus to delete. Canley (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB, previously prod'd and I never noticed. Taking it to AfD. Notability hasn't been established per the guidelines.Crossmr (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus but leaning towards delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author contested ((prod)). Non-notable local street artist. Yahoo! search yields no sources [54] other than WP article and own personal website. Google search at least yields one third party source, www.artofthestate.co.uk, but that is all. (Note: I disregarded the German websites as "Eine" is a common German word.) 12 Noon 2¢ 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable band, but isn't a7, also unsourced. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEB, previous listing didn't begin to address notability. None of the reasons to keep that were given meet current guidelines. Its been unreferenced for an extensive length of time, which again makes it impossible to establish notability. Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 03:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A user a few days ago who refused to register for an account kept attempting to speedy delete this page (and succeeded once - the admin restored so it could be taken here). At the moment, I have no opinion. I can see how this topic could conceivably be notable if sources are found...I can also see how it wouldn't be. SmashvilleBONK! 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. I've considered the citations of policy, guidelines and outcome below, but as a verifiable, gazetted geographic feature and the lack of consensus on the notability of such an entity, I've chosen to err on the side of keep. Canley (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this mountain pass is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[60][61][62][63][64] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 03:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]