The result was keep, given WP:SNOW, per withdrawing nominator. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Notability. Obscure internet coding system (like Geek Code but not as popular?) for bears (the gay slang term, not the furry animal). User0529 (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep given the extensive expansion - Nabla (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure term even within the gay community, stub article better suited for a dictionary User0529 (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
*Delete From the article, "The phrase 'fag stag', although rare, is beginning to be used more often as homosexuality becomes more readily accepted among straight men." I'm sorry, we don't keep articles about phrases that are rare. Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The result was Keep This was a procedural nomination, so I feel WP:SNOW applies, especially given that I was the editor who bundled this into another AfD in the first place. The article still needs third-party sources, but amid all the "it's useful" !votes I've found a couple actual sources which have me convinced that this is notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was bundled in with my nomination of Rec.sport.soccer by another editor. In the interest of clarity, I have unbundled this article and put it up for it's own discussion. Otherwise, I abstain for now. DarkAudit (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the unanimous consensus in this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. This is a first hand account by the author about his affliction with dissociative identity disorder. Book was on NYT bestseller list in 1999, but otherwise is non-notable. Author did appear on a few TV shows when the book was published. Never reviewed by major newspapers or mainstream media. The author has not written any other books or articles on the subject. Author is not otherwise notable. Book does not appear to be cited by mainstream medical literature. —G716 <T·C> 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, early closing per WP:SNOWBALL, borderline speedy-delete case
No evidence of notability provided, no reliable sources provided: external links do not seem to provide independent support for the article's assertions, one is to the bank itself, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the article's assertions, the other is to a Yahoo! blog. Googling only gives 15 hits, apparently none to traditionally-edited reliable sources. The Anome (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We sued the bank in Tokyo Disrict Court. Case Number is 467 in Tokyo Disrict Court. Law firm is Kamiyacho Central. Law firm's email is okushima@k-central.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibsvaibs (talk • contribs) 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G4 (recreation of deleted article) by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF, since filming hasn't started yet. shoy (reactions) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted article and nn bio posted by someone with a conflict of interest. Daniel Case (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Webmaster of a non-notable website (doesn't have a WP article), in addition the account that created this page is named after the website. shoy (reactions) 21:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Soxπed93(blag) 21:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. Taking pictures of famous people isn't much of an assertion of notability. shoy (reactions) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete at this time. —Sean Whitton / 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed with no reasoning, delete per MUSIC and NOTMEMORIAL. This wholy uncited article was created after the subject's death. A Google News search draws no coverage outside of Cincinnati, OH and Columbus, OH (her local area) prior to her obituary notice. As she was an independent musician, there are no major tours, no charted hits, no gold records, no assertion of stylistic representatation (in fact, a recent edit to the article compares her to more established artists), no major music awards or radio play, and in fact, nothing at all that fits WP:MUSIC besides the theme song criterion (which is uncited), despite a close to ten-year career claimed by the article. Perhaps the most pertinent question is that if she was so notable as to have an article, why did no one think to start the article before she died? This seems to be a perennal problem here on WP. MSJapan (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found an actual tour schedule her Reider and it seems she was the opening act in many cases here, but here are some shows that I dug up.
Many of these can be verified through primary sources (e.g. the Katie Todd Band site or the venue site). This only shows a few gig's outside of OH, but might be a start for someone to work through. -MrFizyx (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to lack of sources. —Sean Whitton / 13:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This choir does not meet the notability guidelines and has multiple other issues. Tavix (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure about the award as an assertion of notability, but even if major, it, like the rest of the article is uncited and unverified. Therefore delete as no notability established.Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist, possibly self-promotion of the user. Only source is a myspace page. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 21:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep - vandal request. Sceptre (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, appears non-notable. Theplansthattheyhavemade (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Sean Whitton / 13:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No title. No release date. No tracklist. Sources are generally reliable, but don't say anything of substance. Crystal violation. Kww (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (WP:SNOW) and Salt --JForget 01:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been nominated for deletion two times now. This incarnation is a one-liner with no sources (Crystal Kong?). Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as unsourced. —Sean Whitton / 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Article asserts notability (thus failing the criteria for a speedy), but the only notability actually provided is a you-tube video series, which would fail WP:RS. Article also asserts 'internationally recognized speaker and negotiater (sic)' but fails to back this up. CultureDrone (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unencyclopedic and bordered on contentious. It has an incrediably small focus and I feel it is unnecessary to have an article on this topic. Are sexual assaults against Asian women, awful as they may be, worthy of their own article? No, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. Are the motivations (primarily racist as this article seems to imply) that different from sexual assaults against white women, black women, Hispanic women, etc? Are Asian women not sexually assaulted anywhere else in the world?
The article appears to be a mixture of psychology - which could be merged with rape or racism- and a list of specific assaults. For a start, I doubt any of these women want the incident catalogged in an encyclopedia! Merge the relevent content with rape and rascism and delete the list. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
)Shame on you! So racist violence towards women is not important enough???173.54.13.112 (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable group that fails WP:MUSIC. There are no independent sources, no album and not even signed to a record company. Two of the three members were semi-finalists on American Idol (season 7), so they are not even notable to have their own articles. Aspects (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Adequate reference establishing notability was absent at the time of the nomination. Non-admin closing. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Author of unclear notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started this article about Vyvyane Loh and don't really see why it shouldn't be here. She's a contemporary writer who's first book was very well received. I'm not sure if the deletion notice was put here by a bot or a person, but I don't really think it's warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wassermn (talk • contribs) 18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 02:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author removed endorsed prod without explanation or editing to adress the concerns raised, which were that this group has no reliable sources to establish it's notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete: early closing per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Delete. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect (non-admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal Ball, no definate information available for such album yet Alankc (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily Redirect to Castlevania: Symphony of the Night; objections can go through usual channels (non-admin closure). Nifboy (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no indication of its real-world notability. A Google search reveals no coverage outside forums discussing the game, and those don't suggest it's special enough to have attracted any mainstream sources. Was originally tagged for speedy with db-bio, which is clearly wrong. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (non-admin closure). Article was Speedy Deleted. Edward321 (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. ChaChaFut (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see absolutely no need for Wikipedia to have articles on individual books in an annual series, rather than having a simple Guinness World Records article for the book in general. Georgia guy (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, youth football player born in 1990 who fails WP:ATHLETE (no first team appearances in a fully professional league). Angelo (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax. He was born in 1983, yet he has stats from playing in the mid-1980s. He also has a slew of MLB awards. Baseball-Reference has no record of this individual. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. I'd relist, but I doubt anything more useful would come out of it: there has been plenty of discussion already. —Sean Whitton / 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is documenting a neologism. There are several sources on the page; however, only one article makes explicit use of the term as a genre name (the Times article) and even then only uses it as one of three possible terms. More often than not, the "genre" term is used in a happenstance manner (i.e. "this new prog rock..."). Moreover, many of the soures do not even use the term: the Entertainment Weekly article "Prog Rocks Again" gives various names for newer progressive rock bands and "New Prog" is not listed among them. Furthermore, the style itself is not notable, being a very limited example of recent progressive rock. DeletionAccount (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a more detailed rationale for deletion. This article is an exercise in original research by synthesis. It collects uses of the term "new prog" in certain music articles about bands, and uses those quotes to make an article on new prog itself, rather than on the bands. The problem with this is clear from an OR point of view.
Moreover, there are no sources given that actually on the topic of "new prog" itself, as would be required for notability. Incidental mentions in other works don't suffice for WP:N here.
Detailed examination of the sources provided shows that many of them only use the phrase "the new prog". Examples:
These articles are not trying to define something called "new prog"; they are just using the adjective "new" to describe the type of prog that certain bands represent. As a thought experiment, imagine if I wrote an article on the "next mayor of town" by accumulating all the news articles that use the term "next mayor".
The final quote above is particularly telling. If the music industry itself has not settled on a name for this genre (or, indeed, decided that it isn't just the next stage of prog rock itself), we are only speculating by collecting their quotes and making an article on "new prog". These things need to be settled in the real world before we try to write an article about them on Wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two main problems:
The result was Redirect to Bouncer (doorman). Hut 8.5 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article based on the following:
The opinions: (1) Not notable. If it is deemed notable through reliable sources, it should be merged with Bouncer (doorman); (2) Not Encyclopaedic.
The facts: (a) (as part of the pre-nomination criteria) the only direct incoming links are 3 redirects, all of which were created by the editor upon article creation. One of these redirects is linked on 1 article, but an in-text citation would work better; (b) there is no revision history (not a good reason in itself, of course, but it adds to the overall nomination); (b) Unverifiable—the current "source" (the external site) leads to the message "The system cannot find the file specified." A search of this site revealed no guide exists. Plus, as the Ministry of Sound is one of the "more exclusive clubs", all info has been obtained from a primary source. — Skittleys (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. Going through AFD because being a Wikipedia version may make it ineligible for A7 Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect. —Sean Whitton / 13:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely minor "Family Guy" character. JuJube (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 13:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO1E of a California store owner who foiled a robbery and got a burst of publicity. No WP:RS coverage since. Prod disputed on the grounds that he has become a YouTube phenomenon. No references to back this up. No evidence of lasting interest. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of this artist or label. Article reads like an advertisement. Google search turns up nil. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was Delete as non-notable. —Sean Whitton / 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article quality is good, the subject doesn't seem notable enough; he has still not succeeded MySpace fame. StaticGull Talk 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. -- RyRy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
article fails to assert why this radio personality is notable. Lacks 3rd party verifiable references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 20:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot quite call this original research because it references a website. But I suspect that the website was created by the author of this article. Non-notable new theory. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though perhaps not quite mainstream or entirely verifiable information, maybe this article (and its author) should be given a chance at elaboration and further explanations... Besides, what is being advocated does not sound so unfavorable or absurd anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxari (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Paxari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
First of all, I merely contributed to the creation of the website and Neoism is NOT a theory it is an IDEOLOGY. Second of all, one of Wikipedia’s so-called editors misspelled Independent as “inpedpendant “, if this is the intellectual caliber of the individuals judging my article then I have certainly lost a lot of respect for Wikipedia.
neo +supravea +vajulad +jaleex +altika +"tyco-dai" +isis
; these are apparently the seven basic principles of Neoism.) AnturiaethwrTalk 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as a hoax/vandalism page (CSD G3). The article was first created as a vanity page, and when it was deleted, the user chose to recreate it as a hoax page. This is getting tiresome. Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax article about someone called Justin Davis claiming, amongst other things, that he was in the Rolling Stones for two weeks. The article includes a picture of Mick and Keith with the subtitle identifying Mick as this Justin Davis fellow. The references and Google do not lend any support to the claims. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to do anything in particular with this, so defaulting to keep. —Sean Whitton / 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a dancer whose claim to fame is that she was a contestant on a reality show, had to withdraw due to injury, but "aims to grow as a dancer and an artist through her experience within So You Think You Can Dance". PROD removed with the comment "I think everyone who makes it to the top ten and joins the SYTYCD tour meets the notability threshold". I don't agree, so I bring it here for other views. There is an earlier AfD for this name, but not the same person. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came in for some criticism for speedily deleting a similar list for the University of Southern Mississippi on the grounds of it being a group with no notability. For me, groups and lists are not mutually exclusive, and I consider these articles are merely groups of societies that have a membership.
I see no encyclopaedic value here. Whilst the fraternities and sororities may in themselves be notable, the fact that they exist at a given university is not. From a non-US point of view, it's a little like "List of sports clubs at University of Kent" or "List of social clubs at Essex University" or "Motoring clubs for Civil Servants". I can accept that an individual fraternity or sorority at an individual university could be notable, but there is no indication that this is the case for any of those listed here. Deb (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Ty 04:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A photographer in his twenties who seems to have done well in minor contests, who has pronounced religious views, who has occasionally got into some kind of dispute about religion, but about whom I can find very little information. There's a claim that he's published a book, but Google has no mention of it other than in this article, and apparently it has no ISBN, which sounds odd. Prod added earlier, prod removed. I hope that he has a great future, whereupon he may have an article. But I think an article is premature. Hoary (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. Article blanked by original author. -- Longhair\talk 09:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not suitible for wikipedia. Chafford (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Main Page/Archive 4
The result was keep. ——RyanLupin • (talk) 08:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable educational establishment Chafford (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted, no content. -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chafford (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: should this be speedily deleted, just being one line of text? Wongm (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted, nn bio. -- Longhair\talk 08:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, notability issues. Chafford (talk) 08:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues, and I feel that this article is using wikipedia as a religious soapbox. Chafford (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), invoking WP:SNOWBALL as Olympic competition is obviously notable. Whpq (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) I filed this AFD note at 08:15 AM UK time, it is now 19:50 PM UK time, and consensus is to keep. Chafford (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stub, provides no information and the formatting went awry. Chafford (talk) 08:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who can be sure that what is written in this article is solid fact and not just speculation, it is for that reason I request deletion of this article. Chafford (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn although please do the necessary updates before it gets flagged again--JForget 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can confirm that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to speedy this, since the article has sufficient content that one might consider the newsgroup in question to be notable. However, the newsgroup may remain non-notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a confusing one. It started life as Wrexham & Shropshire Route. It was put for deletion. The consensus was for merge with Wrexham & Shropshire. Well Gwen Gale felt as though there wasn't enough content to merge with the main article, so she deleted it. Well just before the first AfD started, Mpvide65 created a template (Template:Wrexham & Shropshire Route) that contained the information that was in the route article. On July 4th, that template was nominated for deletion. Mpvide65 then immediately moved the template to Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram). So now we're basically back where we started. I ran into this because I was about to delete the template per a template for deletion. This Wrexham & Shropshire Route (diagram) article actually has less content than the original deleted article had. It's still essentially just a template with a very small lead paragraph. I don't personally have an opinion here. I'm just presenting this because this needs to be resolved one way or another. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Sean Whitton / 14:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This topic has been re-created after an uncontested ((prod)). No claim of notability in the article, nor are there any references--not to mention the secondary, substantial references required to demonstrate notability. Mikeblas (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article failes to state any sources, not notable since it wasn't a major fire. Bidgee (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), the article has obviously now been expanded beyond a dicdef. Kotniski (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little more than a dictionary definition, and I can't see how it would be expanded into an actual encyclopedia article. Already has wiktionary:overspending entry. ZimZalaBim talk 03:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep - we've been through this too many times, and last one was far too recent. See my comments on the last AfD. Al Tally talk 11:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a completely non-notable website. It fails WP:N (more specifically WP:WEB) and doesn't have a neutral point of view. Alexfusco5 02:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by Jauerback, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed Prod. Teenage reality TV "star" and internet celebrity. No WP:RS coverage cited or found to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 04:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author requests more time to improve the article, so I have (generously) declined to speedily delete it. However, the subject of the article appears to be non-notable. Richard Cavell (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Keep (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no notability asserted; lacks citations Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable newsgroup. No reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 15:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable newsgroup. Fork of a newsgroup that's red linked, no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 14:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Generally non-notable. Tagged as such since November 2007. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep under criterion #1: no editor, including the nominator, recommends deletion of the articles. Mergers are a separate process. (Secondarily, the nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry.) —C.Fred (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The full list of characters I'm nominating:
What of Kelly Crabtree, Vernon Tomlin, Chesney Battersby-Brown, Dev Alahan, Carla Connor, Becky Granger, Tina McIntyre, Harry Mason and Dan Mason? -- Dodgechris (talk)
I have had no choice but to renominate Carla Connor - she has previously been nominated in 2007, but the article was kept -- Dodgechris (talk)
I am still concerned about Kirk and Molly having their own page -- Dodgechris (talk)
What shall i do with the rest of the characters on the deletion list? -- Dodgechris (talk)
Keep as a trainwreck. It's quite clear that the nominator hasn't quite decided what should happen to each individual article. Those that stand on its own should not be nominated. Those that should be merged to a list of characters can be dealt with outside of AFD. And if there are any left at the end of the activity, then they can be nominated for AFD then. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this even notable? It's a residence. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 00:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 04:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cartographic aggression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rarely used neologism. Article only exists to push an agenda. --Pjacobi (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a 4-5 year old who played a baby/toddler in the BBC soap EastEnders. Seeing as baby actors are essentially living props, and would have gone without an actual line I would suggest they are non-notable. Certainly they would not appear to fufil the criteria set out by WP:Entertainer. For the same reason, I am also nominating:
HornetMike (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Looks like the snow's come early this year. Added a "citations needed" template. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant/self-publicity Lucas Ayala (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]