The result was Speedy Deleted, nonsense. Nakon 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism? I'm not sure whether this is a hox or not, but it doesn't quite fall under "vandalism", I don't think. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. Claims to be signed to LL Cool J's label, with an album "upcoming" (read: no albums yet). Google for "Michael Wainer" guitar gives no relevant ghits. — Gwalla | Talk 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference these before deleting. Mr. Wainer's company is in top 5 production teams under 25 and the first band/production team signed to LL Cool J's Platinum Harvest Productions. There are fictional characters from law & Order listed on your "encyclopedia". Do Mr. Wainer the honor of his place.68.173.185.227 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality article on a non-notable footballer that has never played at fully professional level therefore failing WP:FOOTYN and WP:ATHLETE. If the player ever plays at the required level a suitably titled and accurate article can be created. EP 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to American Idiot#Movie adaptation Waggers (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted article under American Idiot (film). The article itself states that it is unknown about the status of the film and more likely that there won't be a movie. Fails WP:NFF. Orfen T • C 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. There is substantial consensus, however, that the article has to be at the very least rewritten, and hopefully some of the keep !voters will take a stab at it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources have been provided since the first deletion nomination. Sources given are all from questionable sources, e.g. polyamory websites or books from publishers without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Topic is a neologism, and is still non-notable. Discussion from the last nomination was skewed since notice of it was posted to polyamory discussion community on LiveJournal and members were asked to vote against the deletion nomination. Scarpy (talk) 21:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lunaverse (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus or more so Merge and Redirect however many has suggested to merge content to Veronica Mars and to remove the rest. Please merge any necessary content into that article and then delete the rest and just redirect this to Veronica Mars. --JForget 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional place only appearing in one TV series, merge to the tv series article and trim down. Myheartinchile (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artist appears to fail WP:MUSIC and has a lack of non-trivial third party publications to confirm the current content being presented on Wikipedia at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to State University of New York at Binghamton (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student newspaper. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW and because this is getting seriously off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertation of notability. Sources aren't reliable substantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTIONS Okay, hammer... got some questions for you here:
Please address these issues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Newsweek article is not about Dr. Linden; it is, however, about his book and his book only. That seems material to this discussion. Scooge (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess a "bare link" is all those "external links" that don't refer specifically to Linden's writings? So that means I must master the footnote system. You know, my husband has been trying to tell me for years that I'm not perfect, and I've . . . resisted this bizarre idea. But it could be that the spouse is onto something . . . You're right: Shatner break. Scooge (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So where do I get more free ST--or, possibly even better, a recording of Shatner singing "Rocket Man"? I've heard that that is wonderful.
Furthermore, why is Shatner so YOUNG in Star Trek? I mean, he's, like, barely legal. Sexy, but almost creepy. Is it some sort of makeup effect? Scooge (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm a fact-checker, so I CAN do this. I just hate doing it without being able to bill at some obscenely-low English-major rate. And, as previously indicated, I abhor imperfection. (Proofreading background + 46-year-old eyes = imperfection. No exceptions.)
As far as ST is concerned--and I'm going to Comic-Con this year for weird spouse-related reasons--I have the following concerns: (1) Aren't the women's uniforms just a TAD impractical? (2) Which color shirt is it that guarantees death? Is it blue? (3) Are there teensy hints of Takai's homosexuality in that first episode? Or am I imagining it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scooge (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protonk (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) Are there ANY long-term ST crew members who wear red? Because in episode, #1, we had a few blue-guys die. Also, how frequently does Kirk wear that sexy V-cut shirt? (As I understand it, Shatner is obligated to lose his shirt entirely in 99% of episodes, just as Chuck Norris needs to lose his gun once per movie. Life, like a sonnet, does have its rules, after all. Not for me, but for others.)
2) How frequently do female crewmembers die in ST, and does uniform-color bear any correlation to this statistic?
3) Sorry, but I still think Sulu comes off a bit light on his loafers. it could be that I'm the victim of prejudice.Scooge (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) I'm sorry but I'd like a color for engineering-smock stats. Is that those sort of maintenance uniforms that people wear? Might I assume that there are zero chicks in such outfits? And, while we are on the subject, what color did Scottie wear?
I hate to sound like an idiot, but . . . it's truth in advertising!Scooge (talk) 16:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a school that fails to assert notability and cites no third-party sources Steve CarlsonTalk 20:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have to nominate an academia-related article for deletion, but the subject of the article is just not notable enough to pass WP:N or WP:ORG. I looked around and could not find any substantial independent sources covering the program as such. Also, the article is definitely written as a publicity piece. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an example of a substantial independent source is? Meaning third party sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If removing the Contact, Admission Info, and Tuition will that remove the feeling towards it being a publicity for the piece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, so using a program template such as Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program for reference would make this more notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll inform my client and we will go about creating this page with the appropriate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.215.11 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are looking into third party sources and removing the publicity towards the piece. How long do we have until the article is considered to be removed completely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 16:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have updated this page with third party sources. Can you review and check for notability and let us know if we need to verify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 18:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are an independent source, because it was a puffery piece written by the client, we have re-wrote this so that they would not promote a publicity piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Binguser (talk • contribs) 18:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased album, requires substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources (per WP:MUSIC). None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to speedy this as spam, but then I saw the first AfD nomination, so I figured I'd re-post it for more discussion. It seems to me to be solely promotional. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was
Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. SilkTork *YES! 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried a couple of times to make something of this article, but there are no reliable sources out there for this as an encyclopedic topic so something needs to be done. Food courts exist, but nobody appears yet to have produced a study of them. The problem is that without reliable sources the material tends to be original research, or an inappropriate synthesis of material gathered from varied sources. I have attempted to merge it with Shopping_mall#Food_court, but this has been undone. The term Food court has been transwikied to Wikitionary and the article was tagged either for a redirect, expansion or deletion. The tag was removed before any of these things happened - I have replaced the tag. User:TexasAndroid put a Prod on it, but that was rejected. I suggested another attempt at a merge, but this also has been rejected. My feeling is still that a merge/redirect to Shopping Mall is the appropriate option. If the #Food court section manages to gain some reliable material to become a stand alone article then it can be broken out in Wikipedia:Summary style, until that point it seems appropriate to keep it in the Shopping mall context where it makes more sense and is more likely to gain attention. The other option is to delete it, as there is already enough material on Food court in the Shopping Mall article to explain what it is: an area in a shopping mall that serves food. SilkTork *YES! 19:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Perhaps this could be merged into the artist or album page? I find the part about an hobbyist animator creating the official music video for the song fascinating. Superjoe30 (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously nominated for deletion approximately 2 years ago, but I believe that our standards have risen such since then that this person no longer meets the requirements set forth by WP:BIO and others. All the material presented is being sourced by Kenny Sia's personal blog, or other blogs and this thing is quite an amazing libel magnet as well. I will treat this as a procedural nomination for now and withhold my !vote for later if evidence of substantial non-trivial coverage of this subject can be located from reliable third party sources. RFerreira (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, reads like a copyvio textdump of an EU document. Sandstein 23:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stated purpose of this article is to "summarize the recent proposal by the European Commission that 2009 should become the European Year of Creativity and Innovation." Its unencyclopedic and OR.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. — MaggotSyn 16:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporation per WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close This is not Articles for Merging. For crying out loud, use a ((merge)) template. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news syndicate, merge back to Zhejiang University Madcoverboy (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. However is an appropriate redirect so will create redirect after deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had trouble finding any reliable information for this article. It says b.1987, but then says 1989? Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Belair, South Australia. As TerriersFan has already merged the cited content I'll just change the article to a redirect - Peripitus (Talk) 05:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school, no coverage from WP:RS Madcoverboy (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Though clearly the consensus is that Infancy research should be deleted, but as this article was never part of the AfD doing so would be out of process. I have added a Prod to it with a link to this AfD discussion. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of non-notable academic. While I'm not officially including it in this nomination, please also evaluate Infancy research by the same author. Author's account has been blocked for having a promotional username. --Finngall talk 17:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep in its now much better form - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be rambling commentary, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Three keeps (all valid) and no requests for deletion Leonard(Bloom) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC Madcoverboy (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician and journalist per WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO Madcoverboy (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bootlegged album, with no assertion on importance besides "one of the first bootleg albums to appear containing Jack Johnson songs." Most of the article is a listing of tracks. A google search turns up little. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This collection was released with the artist's input and is respected by him and his fanbase (goggle "jack johnson" and "JOAT" for proof of this, or go to jackjohnson.com where there are entire threads dedicated to this collection). JOAT was the first collection of its kind and it does not make sense why the other articles about other "unofficial" recordings are left and only JOAT is being considered for deletion. Beatnikdaddio (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:WEB, no coverage from reliable, independent sources Madcoverboy (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by the creator. Non-notable Korean fairy tale. A Google search on this topic returns no results. The external link provided by the creator of this article doesn't mention this fairy tale. The other link provided by the creator doesn't return any results either as seen in this Google search. This is probably a hoax or very obscure fairy tale that few know about. Cunard (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software package with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch gives lots of download sites, but not a whiff of notability; zero gnews hits. Prod contested back in February. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:IINFO, WP:WEB given no indication of notability or significance, only single reference Madcoverboy (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC save for many non-verifiable claims, failing content verifiability policy as well. JBsupreme (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete; article about a real person in which no significance is asserted (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician; the only Google hit I found was another Wikipedia article (where her mention is unsourced). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Though specific guidelines like WP:CREATIVE may not be met, there is enough coverage in independent reliable sources that we can find the subject notable per the general notability guideline WP:N. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page fails to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE - not important, minimal attention, no new concept, no major role in a movie or other creative work, can't find reviews of her book, can't find any critical attention, most references are to local media and quite short. There's only three real references which are quite short and dated to nearly a year ago with no attention I can find since then. Previous version of the page was deleted and no real new content or sources added since then that I can recall (can't see the deleted page for a direct comparison).
Amazon does not have a copy of her book, I can't find an ISBN, no attention seems to have been paid since the initial publication push in 2007 and google turns up 1000 hits, the top of which are blogs and wikipedia mirrors. WLU (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jamshed is not an important figure, hasn't created a new concept, has no body of work or major film and there's no critical attention (the criteria for the article about an author). Publishing a single book, the interest in which has died off, is not a reason to have a wikipedia article. The page was deleted previously and nothing has really changed since then, so there's no reason to retain the current page. Two paragraphs in TheWeek, two paragraphs in Kolkata Newsline, a stubby non-article on NDTV's print section and a single article in The Hindu, all from a year ago with no attention since indicates a lack of notability. Unlike people or topics in general, press coverage is not sufficient for an author, it must be more than a single book. Coverage by multiple sources is the general notability guideline for topics but authors have more specific ones (most authors get some press time which lets them scrape general notability even when they only ever publish a single book that flops; accordingly, a more specific guideline is used). Reference should be made to the specific guidelines, not the general notability page.
At best, an article might scrape the bottom of the barrel for the book's notability, but these are news stories, not reviews. The relevant criteria for books is multiple independent publications with non-trivial coverage, some of which include critical commentary. Coverage is trivial in Kolata Newsline and NDTV's artilces, borderline in TheWeek and reasonably extensive in The Hindu. However, the sole aritcle that is extensive (The Hindu) is about the author primarily, not the book. None include critical commentary or reviews and at best could expand the plot summary section of the book.
The result was delete. Consensus was that, even after a rewrite, this article had substantial WP:SYNTH, WP:IINFO and WP:N issues. The rewritten article was mostly about pop-media coverage of some specific subjects related to the airline, such as its 9/11 flights, and I'll restore the history on request if it is shown that consensus exists for a full or partial merger to somewhere else. Sandstein 23:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was created by an editor who wanted to make it more difficult to delete items already removed from United Airlines#In popular culture. Most of the information there is original research involving nonnotable, trivial or passing displays of United Airlines in the media. Anything that isn't should be placed back into the popular culture section at United Airlines. Since that section currently only has two entries, there was never a reason to fork it in the first place. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | The Softbot model manager performs fast inference
on local closed-world information; if the user later specifies that the carrier must be United Airlines, the Softbot need not access SABRE again. But if the Softbot i s informed of the creation of a new flight, or a change in the desired destination, it retracts its conclusion of local closed-world information and gathers more information. |
” |
Delete a couple of years back almost every article had its "popular culture" section, where inane trivia were added. While some one has provided some serious academic content for this page, this bulk of it is still a list of trivial allusions in films etc. We might conceivably have an article Airlines in popular culture, but I do not see the need to have one on one particular airline or even every one of 1004 airlines (or however many there may be). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G4 and salt by Ultraexactzz. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted via VfD back in 2005, but the article then was a bare stub. While this article is expanded, the flaws still remain. It is unreferenced. While the group may be notable, the article is not verifiable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone believes they can address the notability issues and wants the page userfied, drop me a line with a link to this debate.Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Educational organization with no assertion of notability or significance, no references from reliable sources, no ghits of significance Madcoverboy (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable corporate internship program with no assertion of importance or notability, nor independent coverage by reliable sources Madcoverboy (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination moot after a complete rewrite of the article to cover a different subject. Sandstein 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this is shooting at, but it doesn't really go anywhere. It seems to be some sort of rambling that has nothing to do with the title. I declined an A7 as it's not really a bio or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to McMaster Students Union per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization, no assertion of importance, no independent coverage Madcoverboy (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by PeterSymonds , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod tag removed without any improvement to the article, which doesn't meet WP:NFF as a film that seems to have not yet been produced; no reliable sources, no assertion of notability, etc. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a single TV program, and not even a very popular one. The content is entirely a recap of the content of the program, which belongs at Ronald Reagan if it belongs anywhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - No assertion of notability (CSD A7) J.delanoygabsadds 17:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website with literally no external coverage. A Google search only brings up a large number of posts on various forums attempting to promote the website. J.delanoygabsadds 15:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of very very loosely associated people. It is also mainly original research and although authors should be commended for their effort to give proper references, the fact remains that one article labeling someone as an anglophile is not meaningful. Moreover, "anglophile" is a rather vague term and browsing through the references makes it quite clear that it has distinct connotations when applied to Nelson Mandela or to Madonna. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. Outrageous claims in the article and I could not find any proof that this person even existed Nsk92 (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable local political activist in Portland. Only two fairly minor GoogleNews hits[31]. Fails WP:BIO Nsk92 (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The track is only regionally known, with no hits found that discuss its notability at all. Creator and primary editor of the article notes below that it is notable only locally and "can't really find much else." Frank | talk 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable speedway. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the track is notable only in east central indiana and i cant really find much else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigred1956 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a project that does not meet Notability. A search for Reliable sources about the project don't turn up any significant coverage. News results are for housing developments that happen to have the same name. Additionally the article appears to suffer from a conflict of interest. Most of the material reads like a press release, and in fact, I've removed a section that was a verbatim copy of a page from the project web site. The remaining text is still substantially a composite of press release material glued together. Whpq (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that there was a previous AFD. It was speedied as a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Waggers (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is basically just a list of the places where this specific string of words has been written; it seems to fail notability by any standard I can think of. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, and I was actually quite close to calling this an outright "keep" since the issue of the national awards (confirmed by evidence produced by Groggy Dice) has not been adressed at all by those calling for deletion except for assertions that they are not notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article seems to fail the notability criteria under WP:MUSIC. The band has released 1 album under an independent label (WP:MUSIC requires at least 2 albums on a major label or a notable independent label), there has been no non-trivial media coverage from independent and reliable sources. The article mentions that the band has charted a hit on a national music chart but a Google search didn't return any reliable sources to verify this information. There was only this blog which mentions the band charting a #1 hit on a local radio station, not on a national chart. All in all, it seems to be a band that may be known locally but, again, it fails the basic tenets of WP:N and WP:MUSIC. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed after nomination withdrawn. Bduke (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An alphabetic bullet list of wikilinks. Provides maintenance overhead, but (in this form) no added value compared to Category:Online encyclopedias. Sandstein 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn; the list has been improved and is no longer redundant to the category. Sandstein 06:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only recordings are on a label that's also up for AfD. Sources aren't reliable (e.g. Last.fm) or otherwise non-substantial. They participated at a few festivals, but that isn't a criterion of WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article lacks any references asserting notability, and is simply a definition of the term "Materia Medica" with repect to Homeopathy. As the article states, there is no such thing as "the" Homeopathic MM, and the much more notable Homeopathic repertory only warrants a subsection of the main homeopathy page. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, due to insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable label. No reliable sources, only acts seem to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting per RyRy's[citation needed] concerns of notability. Good idea, RyRy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged since March for lack of notability. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND. Albums were released on a label that's up for AFD, only sources are primary or unsubstantial. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article does not demonstrate notability per WP:N nor WP:CORP. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable record label. Prod removed by anon without significant comment or alteration. tomasz. 13:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:POV and WP:OR essay Mayalld (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant hoax (WP:CSD#G3). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. This town does not exist. D0762 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article fails general WP:Notability criteria as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article is more or less an anecdote about a 19th century Italian immigrant who allegedly taught American people that tomatoes are "good to eat" as opposed to the the supposed 19th century American belief that tomatoes are poisonous. A Google search bring up mostly Wiki-mirror sites and a couple of other blog/self-published sites that mention the anecdote. There are no reliable sources to indicate this person is notable, therefore the article also fails WP:V and WP:RS. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, not satisfying criteria of WP:music MSGJ (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keephttp://heavymetal.about.com/b/2008/02/02/alestorm-interview.htm http://www.metalstorm.ee/bands/band.php?band_id=2786&bandname=Alestorm http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/BLABBERMOUTH.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=99015 http://www.wacken.com/it/woa2008/main-bands/billing-2008/alestorm08/ This really isn't even close to non-notable. There are also a number of reputable reviews on the album page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.10 (talk)
Comment: as we have a specific guideline about the notability of music and bands, I suggest you look at wp:music and see if it can be verified if the band meets any of these criteria. MSGJ (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised it's even being considered in the first place. This band is a very much breakthrough act from their first album. Also like half a million views on their myspace, slightly behind Firewind who have their own page. Seriphyn (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the alestorm page should stay, they were notable enough to be featured in Metal Hammer's battle metal themed CD, along with the likes of Turisas, Ensiferum and Finntroll. Infact, I defy anyone to give evidence to show they are not notable enough to stay! -Anon 14:13, 5/7/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.125.122 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like Seriphyn above, I am surprised that this is being considered for deletion. There are not one but four different professional reviews listed for Captain Morgan's Revenge and that has to be something of an anomaly for album articles nominated for deletion. Yes, it is their one and only album but it's on a major heavy metal label Napalm Records. Consequently, the band has received plenty of coverage. Aside from the four reviews already listed on the album page, there's interviews here, here, here, here, here, Allmusic bio here, news coverage here, here, here, here, here, here, here, more reviews here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, need I go on? Clearly notable per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. --Bardin (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. Leave me a note if he plays later in the week and I'll restore the article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD - no reason given. Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition - only in a pre-season friendly. --Jimbo[online] 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heywhat! I think I bought this guy in Football Manager the other day — chandler — 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a non-notable band (WP:CSD#A7). PeterSymonds (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band - Previously Prod'ed by another editor. Prod removed but nothing showing notability added. Hunting dog (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect fails the notability guidelines as a seperate article but is an appropriate redirect. Davewild (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability outside band. WP:BAND Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Spellcast (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable short story; contested prod - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, with no prejudice to an appropriate merge being agreed upon. There is consensus here that this is notable enough to be covered somewhere and not deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. Instead, it might be better to either delete it, or create a list of episodes, inlcuding this one. StaticGull Talk 12:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject doesn't seem notable enough. And even if it is notable enough, it belongs on Wiktionary. StaticGull Talk 12:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as mostly nonsensical essay. Sandstein 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay that contains a hell of a lot of WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 12:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has alot of references in the literature it has mentioned, I think the article should just be formated abit better, alot of the material which is discussed in the article is common knowledge to alot of people in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.136.135 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
should the bolding of references under the "Highly Recognised Ceremonial books from the Gothic World" title be replaced with italics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.136.135 (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The books mentioned above were written by notable peoples of Gothic ancestory in times of violent revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.113.228 (talk) 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note most of the literature influenced wicca, paganism & the new age movement as opposed to the dark side of gothic culture like the technocracy & the void engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.113.228 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hitler was born in east germany near austria, he is definitely a goth, he venerated the swastika & other pagan symbols, this does not mean that anyone who venerates these symbols will be a warlord, most people venerate the symbols in a peaceful manner.
there is no existing articles which point reference to gothic ceremonies or lists the books that will instruct someone how to partake in these ceremonies. apart from the aurom solis article.
the goths never disappeared their are people today who call themselves goths, the books listed describe gothic ceremonies as they are suppose to be celebrated, you have to read one of the books to understand what the Ogdoadic tradition is about, the books listed span at least 2000 to 3000 years, maybe 10 000 years according to the red book of westmarch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.113.228 (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the books you mentioned are not to be revealed to the general public most are stored in libaries around the world it is the hermetic tradition after all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.137.77 (talk) 10:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the public have a right to know, they should know what these books are called so they can gain access to them & read them for themselves, I know its the hermetic tradition to keep the books hidden from public view & this has been the policy for the past 2000 years or 10000 years as suggested in the article, but times have changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.137.77 (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the article seeing you all feel it is not suitable for wikipedia -> if you change your mind email me at mantra@spraci.zzn.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindigoat (talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have spend 20 years research in writing this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bindigoat (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to just delete, so here you are... all I could find that was decent was this. Alex Muller 12:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
Only one album. No other real claim to notability Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide Mayalld (talk) 12:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as the category i have to agree with --T - Talk it does fall under "IT DISASTER RECOVERY" thank you --T-Talk 10:06 AM , 4 July 2008
The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 22:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable family article.No references -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 11:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. WP:V does not outright mandate deletion, because most listed media have articles that are (presumedly) sourced. No prejudice to a rewrite, merge, etc. Sandstein 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking of how to save this list a lot, but I have come to the conclusion that it should get deleted per Wikipedia's policies. The list has several problems:
The first is that it is really not a "complete" list of Simpsons media. It is an overview over the seasons combined with a list of Simpsons ads and music videos. Since the seasons are only presented in a overview form, they cannot be considered complete. I don't even think we need a season overview. If people wants to read about the episode, they can go to List of The Simpsons episodes. If they want to read about the short, they can go to The Simpsons shorts. This article is basically an excuse to make a list over ads and if you go through the history of this page you will learn that it was previously called "List of The Simpsons TV ads".
This brings me to the second major problem. The list of Simpsons ads is both incomplete and unsourced. I wouldn't actually mind a list over the Simpsons ads as long as it was sourced by reliable sources, but that is not the case. I have been looking all over the internet. I can't find any reliable sources to cover this. Heck, I can't even find any unreliable sources. I have also looked it up in google books and in newsbank with no result. I have also requested sources at the talk page and at the Simpsons Wikiproject, but with no result. As long as we can't find any reliable sources it has to get deleted per Wikipedia's content policies.
In conclusion, I will recommend a deletion for this incomplete and unsourced list. --Maitch (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
# | First Aired | Title | Length | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1988 | No Teasing | 30 seconds | Bart teases Lisa about having the last Butterfinger in the house. |
The result was No consensus to delete, agreement on whether the subject is notable or not couldn't be reached. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced autobiography that fails WP:BIO. --DAJF (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also on the executive of the Quebec chapter of the Documentary Organization of Canada.
http://www.docquebec.ca/executive/#brett
- BG —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherworks (talk • contribs) 13:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to wealth. Notability is very ambiguous in cases of this sort, but given the narrowness and simplicity of the topic, as well as the strong topical overlap with wealth, there's little benefit to keeping a separate article. I'll leave the history intact in case someone does decide to merge some of the content. — xDanielx T/C\R 10:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Dictionary definition with shades of personal essay. No realistic prospect of becoming encyclopedic since the phrase is a massively broad marketing term that can mean all things to all people. Debate 木 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus, welcoming anyone to find even more refs to head off a 3rd nom in the future (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not usage guides or slang and idiom guides Rtphokie (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete with nobody except the author defending this odd aggregation of data. Sandstein 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. List of two (actually, four) largely unrelated subjects. One country, one group of people, one characteristic, and one moment in their life. Page is a synthesis of data gleaned from reliable sources, but is as such (wealth of military figures at time of death) not a subject of any notable research or commentary. Wealth (and, probably more importantly, class and family) played a large role in British military history (to make it overly simplified, if you were a nobleman, you became an officer: otherwise you didn't), but that doesn't mean that your wealth at the time of your death had any relation to this. And of course any job means an income, so there is some relation there. But there is no significant reason to single out the wealth at death of this occupation. A novelty list, not a representation of a subject that has received consioderable scientific attention or mass media attention. Fram (talk) 07:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One could put all the info into the relevant Wikipedia biographical entries, though that would not answer the question of how this person's circumstance compares to those of his contemporaries. As to the sarcastic observation that Wikipedia might just as well put an article in about how many kittens each military figure had, I will not respond other than to say that the information is of sociological significance. Please do not view this material from a narrow, purely military, point of view. The material circumstances of an important class of people in a nation at a time when it was the dominant power in the world is of more than passing interest. Surely it is of greater significance than the minute details of minor campaigns, details found in Wikipedia in abundance ( details I support keeping). Is a danger not creeping into Wikipedia, that of narrow specialization, a preoccupation with viewing the world through one lens only? Knowledge is about making connections among things. These are facts taken from a prestigious source. The do not quite fit the mold of military history. So should they then be unavailable to interested generalists? Is military history only a hobby for some with rules about what is to be considered and what is not? Polycarp
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unecyclopaedic. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and WP:NOTDIR -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be any viable reason for this page's deletion Musicalphilosophy (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you give me chance to collate the information (instead of slamming a delete mandate on the page) you'll find that the building itself has a history, not to mention an organ that has an interesting back story and is widely known in the area. Seems like anti-Christian behaviour to me Musicalphilosophy (talk) 10:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are there enough external links and references now? I'd like to draw you're attention to the Streetly website, which has hardly any independant info, and there is no request for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicalphilosophy (talk • contribs) 09:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is published material in the form of newspaper articles, and on the Sutton News Website, which I have referenced on the entry. The page is a work in progress as Peterkingiron said, and will in time have a much more detailed entry. Banners Gate Community Church is the centre point of the community which serves around a thousand people. Again I can provide evidence of a great deal of wikipedia entries that are ENTIRELY unreferenced, and there is no unreferenced tag or deletion recommendation. Could someone explain to me why that is? Musicalphilosophy (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Shereth 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, promotional tone, no cited sources. MBisanz talk 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect (see below) or nomination withdrawn. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability and absolutely no evidence of it. (And why on earth do people include the abbreviation in the title?) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Redirect optional. Spellcast (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because each article say the exact same thing, with the exception of its image, and it does not establish notability, per WP:NOTABLE. --haha169 (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, with no prejudice against merging. Concerns about sourcing appear to have been addressed, and shortness of article is not grounds for deletion (though it may be for merging). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is non-notable and has very few g-hits that are reliable secondary sources. Also, it only links to two other pages, both of which are user/talk pages. Leonard(Bloom) 04:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable scientific technology. There is only one source, and this appears to be the only scholarly source available. Total GHits when excluding wikipedia total about 19. The phrase "Aptamer-Facilitated Biomarker Discovery" fetches fewer ghits, and the same scholarly source. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete nancy (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability (being a "vital part" of a winning team is a nearly meaningless statement). Orphaned. Makes nebulous unverifiable claims. Absolutely no hits on web searches for pages, news, etc. bring up this person (though some patently unrelated fellas with the same name do come up). Submitted as AfD after PROD-NN was contested. Vianello (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear this game dosen't exist. Search on Google turned up nothing. Marlith (Talk) 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. No evidence of coverage by reliable sources, therefore there isn't really anything to merge, either. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources for these books. Schuym1 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete nancy (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
League has not yet started up. No verifiable independent coverage which I can find. Hence, does not appear notable. Fightindaman (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged with multiple issues for months, and does indeed read like an ad for something that is at best marginally notable. An anon blanked it and replaced contents with "delete", rather than bring it here, which I am doing... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete as the subject is notable. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 00:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No links to independent references to this festival and not very promising that the link to the official YCF site don't work. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GoodnightmushTalk 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A belief system. The number of Google hits suggests original research or at least non-notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete nancy (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same reason as the first nomination. (List of Disney Channel's summer shows. Unencyclopedic, original research, unreferenced.) Gary0203 (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, practically patent nonsense. Relisting would be pointless. Sandstein 23:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A previous, very similar version of this was deleted as "incoherent". It is very difficult to understand, has no real supporting references and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, discounting single purpose accounts. Sandstein 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Somebody put an article up for an obscure piece of information theory software whose existence was impossible to verify. None of the references given in the article mentioned anything whatsoever about this software, and what is supposedly the software's home page says "This page is under construction."
Subsequently a page was put up on one of the external sites referenced that had no more than a couple of sentences vaguely referring to proving information-theoretic inequalities.
There is still no independently verifiable evidence that this software actually exists. It is an example of vaporware, and not at all notable at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepmath (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 July 2008
Theorywizard (talk) 09:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is leading to arguments without properly understanding the essence of a tool developed. The idea of putting this on Wikipedia is not market it of any sort, by which there is nothing to gain. It is just to ease the job of someone, who work in related area. If the self appointed folks think they understand what is information theory (and concluded this utility is find the length of the longest river in Ireland!), and offer comments offered above, you can vanguard the credibility of the listed item, by your own actions. I leave it to you. It is pretty disappointing that, people with no clue of the subject and still claim to classify the items. I have added it to aid someone's research somewhere in the world, who may not have readily seen all the Information theory aids. Galoiserdos (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Emperors are inherently notable, possibly a disruptive nom at work here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability. Relatively unknown powerless Chinese person. ItoFMA (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article is about a character from the film Wanted with no substantial information. The article's only source is one issue of the comic book on which the film was based, and all the article contains is a standard info box and a brief character biography which basically rehashes the very basic plot of the comic book. Note the article Fraternity of Assassins, which currently redirects back to the same film article (or did before I delinked it anyway). As evidenced here [66], the article, which was not dissimilar in nature to that of Wesley Gibson, was redirected almost instantly to the main film article. Tempting as it is to just do that, I thought I'd go through due process and PROD it (may be a speedy though) and as it's been contested (albeit by an IP and first time editor to the article, without an edit summary) here it is Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article provides no sources that establishes notability according to any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Unless such sources can be provided, the article should be deleted. Nightscream (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE: recreation of previously deleted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Clayworth (talk • contribs) . macytalk 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy was denied for some reason, article is a re-creation of Sneakernight, whose content was deleted after an AfD Passportguy (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]