The result was Page was speedy deleted. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Captain panda 23:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. RFerreira (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references; claims of awards do not match the relevant facts on Wikipedia articles; probable hoax (or at least extreme exaggeration of the truth). MightyWarrior (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence of notability provided. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability (apart from a claim on the talk page that it was used by the "accredited online colleges" as part of their website). Still not clear whether this is about a product or a concept (neither is the article creator, according to the talk page).
I originally PRODded the article for these reasons, and because a Google search gave < 10 hits. PROD was removed by another editor, because apparently it was "mean" to include "Voloper" in the search terms, even though that appears to be the product's (?) creator, according to the article. For reference, another Voloper-related article has recently been deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenSites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli Filth (talk • contribs)
It is an application, sorry about that, I'll remove it Mariam-t (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that this young actor is a co-star in a popular television show, but the article does not include any reliable sources confirming his notability, nor could I find such references with a google search. Is it a hoax, or just a self-aggrandizing autobiography? Or, and I'm stretching good faith as far as I can here, is this a notable person whose sources I simply couldn't find? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was Speedy Delete A3, non-admin closure by Lenticel (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
School who's notability has not been asserted Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and also Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so therefore this article is inappropriate and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was re-created a day after it was deleted pursuant to WP:PROD by User:Sauce2243 (author of the deleted version: User:Strongsauce21). The article cites no reliable sources and claims to be about a video game set for release in mere months by a studio that has announced games for release into 2009 with no mention of this one. I submit this is likely deliberate misinformation that is likely here to prove a point and/or disrupt the project. Erechtheus (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability, probably advertising. Justinfr (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quotes from the subject's blog that was previously considered advertising, and I rewrote the whole article. That was why I removed the tag.
Sorry if that counts as vandalism.
--hbbtk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hbbtk (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google brings up various secondary sources. ---hbbtk
The result was and so deleted blatant copyvio TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no third-party reliable sources. All links are to YinYoga dot com or personal websites. Had this been created recently, I would've speedily deleted as blatant advertising. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty cool tool, but doesn't appear to be under active development. Last news posting on website is from November 2007, with regular postings in February 2006. Paper appears to have been published in 2004. Note search engine still says 2007 on Splash page. Finally the one reference is hosted on the ebiquity website, which appears to be just the website of the lab that was developing this project. In short the tool is not notable, under active development, or fully functional. I let User: Finin know that I would use the AfD process to delete the article unless he had any objections about 3 weeks ago, I haven't heard from him. Jussen (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I'm not at all sure what to do with Citecloud; I have no experience on SPAs. I'll just leave him alone. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Also not notable. Citedcloud (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single-purpose account, created solely to initiate this AfD. It is also probably an alternative account of an experienced Wikipedia editor. The nominator has (so far) not responded to requests (below) to explain their unusual actions. It is therefore possible that this might be a bad faith nomination. Please take this into account when closing this AfD. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod (and rightfully-declined speedy). notability doesn't seem to be present and, although sources are provided, none are reliable since all amount to self-publication. Doesn't seem to be sufficiently similar to Beer pong to be melded with it. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully pro league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed as per WP:CRYSTAL. The speculated schedule is a copy of this year's schedule, with some unsourced addition. There are no confirmed participants also. Asendoh (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this web currency is notable. The website does not have an article and false positives aside as it's a difficult search term, there's no evidence it would pass WP:WEB. Therefore, no apparent logical redirect. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (no reason given). Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league (the Third League of Montenegro is not a fully professional league). Also nominating:
for exactly the same reason, as well as ((FK Igalo Squad)), which lists a whole bunch of them and ((FK Igalo squad)) which is a duplicate. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was an utter mess of a discussion, from which no policy-informed consensus either way is discernible. If these articles are still seen as problematic, I recommend individual re-nominations, one after the other. A centralised discussion might be even better, as it would allow us to consider solutions that do not involve deletion (e.g., merging). — Procedural note: To save time, I'll be removing the dozens of AfD tags with administrative rollback, and only the first talk page will be tagged with an AfD notice. Sandstein 19:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure note: Some editors have proposed to continue discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. Sandstein 20:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Fails WP:NOTE High School Conferences not notable as shown here. Also pages are duplicate information that definitely is not relevant enough to have info listed multiple times on multiple pages. Full list of conferences with schools already exists. Why does each conference with schools need to be duplicated on several individual pages, Ohio High School Athletic Conferences.
Keep All per Jon & Frank--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Reset indent) But again, these instances of noteworthy items in a newspaper may be in for one or two days and then the item isn't covered anymore. This is not the same as a high school conference which is covered in multiple newspapers on an almost year-round basis. And as I've said before, why are the high schools notable, but an organization which is formed by those notable high schools (yes, Ohio conferences are formed by their respective member schools) is not? Keep in mind, the only reason that collegiate conferences have achieved high notability is because of the high notability of their members. Ohio State isn't notable because of the Big Ten; no, the Big Ten is notable because it contains Ohio State and other notable schools like Illinois, Michigan, Purdue, Indiana, etc.--JonRidinger (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not a vote
Articles that should immediately be deleted-REVISED LIST
This is because all of the following pages are nothing more than a list of schools already found on the central list and look like the deleted Cincinnati Hills League article that is from the same list of schools:
1-Blanchard Valley Conference
2-Buckeye Border Conference
3-Central Buckeye Conference
4-Cincinnati Metro Athletic Conference
5-Firelands Conference
6-Great Lakes League
7-Greater Buckeye Conference
8-Greater Catholic League
9-Greater Western Ohio Conference
10-Green Meadows Conference
11-Lakeshore Conference (OHSAA)
12-Midwest Athletic Conference
13-Northeast Ohio Conference
14-Northern Ohio League
15-Northwest Central Conference
16-Northwest Conference (Iowa)
17-Northwest Conference (OHSAA)
18-Northwest Ohio Athletic League
19-Ohio Cardinal Conference
20-Pac 7 (OHSAA)
21-Patriot Athletic Conference
22-Pioneer Conference
23-Putnam County League
24-Southwestern Conference (Ohio)
25-Toledo Area Athletic Conference
26-Wayne County Athletic League
27-West Shore Conference
The following articles have the beginnings or a lengthy history and other valuable items within the article. These articles should be decided upon individually.
1-East Central Ohio League
2-Mid-Ohio Christian Athletic League
3-Midland Athletic League
4-North Central Conference (OHSAA)
5-North Coast League
6-Northern Lakes League
7-Ohio Valley Athletic Conference
8-Portage Trail Conference
9-Sandusky Bay Conference
10-Southern Ohio Conference
11-Suburban Lakes League
12-Toledo City League
13-Western Buckeye League
Clearly Frank Anchor's claim that over half of the articles have more than just a high school listing is not true. 70% of these articles should be immediately deleted. --UWMSports (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have the following conferences in the inaccurate list. The following also have valuable items that could not be easily added to the list:
That makes <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pioneer_Conference&action=edit§ion=9 Editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneer Conference (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedias>16 15, not 10 as you say, conferences that differ significantly from the deleted Cincinnati Hills League. Ben1283 showed and NewYork483 seconded that 53% had more info than a simple school list - a claim which i went by. Perhaps they also included leagues with just lists for schools and sports. I still maintain that all articles should be kept per my previous comments. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that enrollments may be a stretch, but championships should be on school pages in addition to conference pages. Frank Anchor Talk to me (R-OH) 18:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in dispute whether being a high school athletic conference is itself clearly notable, near the border between notable and not notable, or clearly not notable. If being a high school athletic conference is clearly notable, then all articles, even stubs, should pass. If being a high school athletic conference is inself near the border between notable and not notable, then well-written articles plus articles that have an independent claim of clear notability should pass. If it's clearly not notable, then even an article that otherwise meets FA standards should fail unless the individual conference either clearly notable or is a well-written article near the border between notable and not notable. It's the consensus of editors here that the normal rules of "receives significant non-trivial media coverage equals notability" doesn't apply here, if it does, as evidenced by the fact that we didn't speedy-close this as "keep all/snow" on day one.
To help those who think school conferences are marginally or almost notable, as well as those who want to delete all which do not have an independent claim of clear notability, I've prepared this table. Please make corrections and additions.
This chart is incomplete. Please strike this line when it is complete.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. As a side note, I'd like to point out that deleting an article about a man who is at best a kook, at worst a conman is not to delete the article but rather make sure that the man is portrayed in fair light. This includes both fair praise and fair criticism and there appears to be enough of both to construct a balanced article here.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of the subject's notability, and the article seems to be blatant advertising to promote the subjects commercial activities, including his $995 "training sessions" [9] Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The sources cited by Phil Bridger do appear to demonstrate notability.--Kubigula (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent vanity page, person does not conform to any of the guidelines for notability either as creative professional or as academic. Sources are not reliable or independent. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Chzz ► 19:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin closure. macytalk 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable source, notability LeaveSleaves (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LeaveSleaves and I have already had a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page after he posted 2 links ([20], [21]) and suggested that these indicated that it was unclear if an IPL season would occur in 2009 (or any other particular year in the future). I responded to say that these links were about a proposal that there be 2 IPL seasons in the same year (as expressed in this link) and that the 2 initial articles stated that this particular proposal would not go ahead for at least a few years. Here is an extract from the new link:
I also stated that there was no doubt that there would be an IPL season in 2009 and pointed out that, for example, the player auctions saw teams acquire players on 3 year contracts and that there would definitely be IPL seasons in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Any number of articles, such as this one suggest as much. As for notability, if the 2008 Indian Premier League is notable, and it clearly is, so too is the 2009 Indian Premier League. I think there is little value in expanding on this point. Juwe (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the language versions, as a short investigation at plwiki has shown, have been added with a high probability by one and the same person; all have been added as a translation of a previously prepared template and supplemented by trustworthy-looking photos, also taken by one and the same person. When doubts arise, a number of Spanish-language links are provided as sources by the same person - these do not confirm Serrano to be a writer (a few of the links are dead, one points to a webpage of a photographer, another directs the reader to a philantropist webpage). Other sources quoted in various Wikipedia editions rely directly on Wikipedia (which was the case of the article added to Polish Wikipedia), or sources such as the "author's" blog. Google (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=pl&client=opera&rls=pl&hs=ffQ&q=%22Rub%C3%A9n+Serrano%22&btnG=Szukaj&lr=) does not return any search results that confirm Serrano's identity other than Wikipedia itself and its mirros. The alleged Selvinderan publishing house also does not exist, and the only information returned by a search query is a number of Wikipedia user accounts by that name. The entry does not meet any Wikipedia criteria.
3 of 5 Serrano's books as presented in the entry are accompanied by ISBN numbers, and they have been published by the person himself (see http://www.xing.com/profile/Ruben_SerranoCalvo , confront author's resume). The have not been sold by neither Spanish nor international Internet bookshops, they have not been reviewed by any critic - Web sources (blogs and blog-like sites) quote only a local meeting with Serrano.
All in all, this seems to be an amateur writer's self-promotional activity on a huge scale, massively interwiki'ed. A variety of users posting opinions defending Serrano pretend to be different people, although they edit from the same location (as seen at plwiki). ISBN does not mean anything - de facto anyone who is a registered publisher may apply for a batch of ISBN codes and assign these to individual books, posting them in an ISBN database. The only thing that can qualify this article as eligible for publication is mainstream distribution of Serrano's books, which is - as shown above - not happening. Wpedzich (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete - A7 - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, founder of a company we don't even have an article on, no sources, not really a biography. Only 9 unique Google hits, and nothing in Google news. Based on the article's creator's name, it's an autobiography. Corvus cornixtalk 18:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per overwhelming consensus. LeGrande (or anyone else), I understand your rationale, and if you have any reliable, secondary sources from your google searching that you feel verify and confirm the notability of this subtopic of a fictional series, hit me up on my talkpage, and I'll userfy a copy of this for you so you can improve it/restore it properly. Until then, consensus here is to delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet the wikipedia general notability guideline since there is no significant coverage of "kyokugenryu karate" in reliable sources that are independent of SNK and its games. Most of the content of the article violates WP:PLOT and WP:GAMETRIVIA. Randomran (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:RS. If search for Felix Fechenbach+Nazi, google search shows only 45 ghits. This reference only mentions his name and this reference has only one sentence on Felix Fechenbach. No significant coverage multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination per the references provided. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nominator seems to have made a mistake in the process. Rudget (Help?) 18:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ziggy Sawdust 18:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sourced, nothing is for definite; article was made too early in my opinion, and may sway it towards WP:CRYSTAL. Coming to AfD to encounter consensus. Rudget (Help?) 18:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this article per an agreement to resurrect it from a hasty speedy deletion. I fully admit he is close to the threshold at this point of his career, but I think he's on the keep side. My main agreement towards keep would be that he recently played professionally for the Rockford Icehogs and that alone satisfies WP:BIO. He is also known for being on the receiving end of one of Steve Downie's "episodes". ccwaters (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMO he meets the bolded text, unless I'm misreading something, which I might be. Dusticomplain/compliment 19:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Editors interested in pursuing a merge of this material elsewhere are invited to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. ɥʞoɹoɯoʞS 23:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. And this ties in with the on-going discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp relating to the lack of notability rules for political parties. The Libertarian Party (UK) fail WP:N as they have no recorded history of campaigning, they have no elected representatives, no recorded evidence of significant campaigning outside the electoral context of the Henley by-election, 2008, which is their first candidature. They may be notable in the future, but WP:Crystal suggests we cannot assume they will. See the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Money Reform Party debate for a comparative example. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already linked to at bi-election.Smeeee (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The discussions at User:Doktorbuk/pp are still preliminary and no consensus has been reached. (And personally I think your criteria are too restrictive, but that discussion belongs elsewhere!) Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Given the non-notable nature of the party as they currently are would you accept a merge to Libertarianism_in_the_United_Kingdom until such time as the party are genuinely notable (currently that is open to debate, the proposal is 2 years of campaigning/elections) doktorb wordsdeeds 09:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be speculation because there is no references or anything of that matter to verify that this event is actually happening. Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball. Tavix (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Character in a show that doesn't even have an article. I don't see which speedy criteria it meets (it might meet one, I just didn't notice it). <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non admin). This was tagged for AfD only five minutes after creation, and "unfinished" isn't really a rationale for deletion, so consensus here is to give it a chance. WilliamH (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unfinished; it also lacks notability criteria. Bit Lordy (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
The consensus established in this AfD is in line with previous discussions that have held that Guantanamo detainees that have not received substantial coverage from reliable sources – excluding the US government agencies involved in their detention – are not notable. The arguments made by GeoSwan and DGG here are not sufficiently strong to make me disregard that consensus:
A relisting is not appropriate because there has been ample participation and it seems that no important new developments that would need further discussion have occurred towards the end of the AfD. Sandstein 09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a biographical article? It looks more like a WP:COATRACK to me. Either way, the article also fails as the person is only notable for one event anyhow (WP:BLP1E). coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
![]() | This page in a nutshell:
|
The result was Delete. I will be happy to restore the content in userspace if anyone is interested in salvaging some of it or transwikying.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional weapon from one video game with no other notable qualities can be included in a list in the original BF2142 article, but certainly does not deserve its own article. Ops101ex (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 11:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely violates WP:CRYSTAL. Page has been around since last year, but page now doesn't expect album until 2009. When a title and tracklist comes out, then we can include this. Spell4yr (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) I don't think the sources are particularly great overall but consensus is against me and it's not worth keeping this up for the full time. Someone please close this; I'm not familiar with the process of nominator-withdrawn AFDs. Spell4yr (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per new, reliable sourcing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable type of rug. The article is written like an advertisment. Tavix (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of deleted article . Very little sourced information on the script itself - nearly all references refer to the released film, and most of those are not from reliable sources - majority of article is unsourced original research. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a clear, biased advertisement of a product. It is not even remotely significant, every piece of equipment ever used by professionals is not significant. If so, almost every synth would have to be included on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic, and has never been throughly cleaned-up Scapler 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No sources, and so unverifiable fancruft. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first each individual Pokémon character in the anime had a section showing the Pokémon they had. These were eventually removed due to being trivial and failing WP:N. This article was then created; it has no encyclopedic value, and is mainly a bunch of cruft, simply listing each Pokémon every character has. It has no sources and and fails WP:N. Artichoker (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utter speculation. No firm sources to verify that the album is in production, and an utterly speculative title to the album (the current version presents it as if the album will be called Untitled Second Album!). Entirely premature to have an article at this point with the lack of firm sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied per WP:WASTEOFTIME, SNOWBALL and POINT William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NEO. Original Research by Kauffner. The reference given does not only disagree with scientific consensus but also doesn't use the term 'cooling denier'. It appears the User, who created the article is trying to make a point (see edit summary) of some sort, after his disruptive edits have been reverted by multiple editors and he has been ask to stop: [26] [27] [28]. Splette :) How's my driving? 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus, failing WP:MUSIC at all levels. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Has several albums, but none on a major label or notable indy. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. AfD isn't a court of law, precedent does not hold sway, consensus does. Precedent may well influence an editor's opinion but it should not be the main reason of a deletion rationale. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per past precedent. – PeeJay 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages as part of the same series:
and the following pages as similar articles for other countries:
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be non-notable slang, probably originating from a small group Katharineamy (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Audi_R8#Audi_R8_TDI_Le_Mans. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - the article, as it stands, is not WP:NOTE. The article merely deals with the development of an existing Audi model, the Audi R8 (with basically a new engine), and the text of this nominated article is detailed in the R8 article (Audi R8#Audi R8 TDI Le Mans). -- Teutonic_Tamer (talk to Teutonic_Tamer) 13:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nom withdrawn per WP:HEY/I must have had a bad google day TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky comment in the deprod aside, the reason for my original PROD stands. There are a lot of false postives (she's not the one who was married to Leon Uris, death dates don't match). She existed but there's no evidence that she was a notable artist. No evidence she passes WP Bio TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, but probably not difficult to verify, so that is not the issue. This is a genealogical line from random important mediaeval person to random important modern person. Using a sufficiently complete genealogical database, one could produce pages like this one automatically in the millions. Bo Jonsson is probably the ancestor of tens of thousands prominent Swedes, Finns or others. These, in turn, probably have a variety of other important ancestors. No case is being made for why this line is of particular significance. (For some reason, the genealogy has Finnish forms of names even for people who were in all likelihood Swedish-speakers.) Olaus (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep all. No consensus to delete. Malinaccier (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the content of this article is a duplication of information from various articles (in this case, 2006 FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup squads and 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)). The rest of the info is immaterial and unencyclopaedic (e.g. Brazil's preparation for the tournament is not relevant). – PeeJay 12:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was Delete - Although I'm very hesitant to delete any "real place", I agree here that unless we can show, even in a phone book, that this place actually exists, then we have to assume that it either a)doesn't exist, or b)no one cares that it does. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this unsourced article, Meflink is "a small village [in] Båstad Municipality, Skåne County, southern Sweden. It lies approx. 2km south of Östra Karup."
The Swedish online telephone catalogue service eniro.se gives no hits for "Meflink" in any addresses or on any maps. Neither can any locality or small locality of this name be found in the on-line files of Statistics Sweden. Olaus (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep- Withdrawn by nominator. I now see the film to have had coverage in independant, reliable sources per Delicious carbuncle's link. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 16:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N- no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A single blog does not count, and nor does an offical website. PROD contested OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 11:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I resent the amazing wikipedia bureaucracy. A new article has no chance to go beyond a simple stub stage before getting assaulted by numerous AfD. I am not associated in any way with the movie nor its web site. I am not the author of the blog linked to. I have nothing to gain from the article. But one has to spend more time preventing an abusive deletion than contributing interesting content to wikipedia. This kind of abuse (including cultural abuse) is the reason why I spend so little time contributing to wikipedia: if I have nothing to gain, at least I can avoid wasting my time fighting bureaucracy. Go watch the movie! AugustinMa (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wants the content to try and get it onto Wikisource, let me or any other admin know. Neıl 龱 10:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary content fork which is mostly a transcript. The series of events leading to the downing of KAL 007 is better covered in the main article. If possible this should be added to Wikisource, but afterwards should be deleted.
I'm also nominating the following pages for the same reasons:
Guycalledryan (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that these articles contain transcripts but my own intros and some of my comments are also included. But the fact that these is not one comtinuous transcripts but my joining of transcripts, with my deletions of extraneous material - such as fuel readouts, interspersed "fasten seatbelts" announcements in the three languages, etc. might be more telling. I had thought about, as you have suggested, placing the articles contents in the body of the main article, but decided against it because of the length this would bring the main article to. Yet, the material is certainly enhancing to a full understanding of eventsBert Schlossberg (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable series of US only adverts Darrenhusted (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Jami'a Nooriyya Arabic College. Tikiwont (talk) 09:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable local degree, no references given. Triwbe (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of any actual notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonably well put together piece about an apparently hard working and talented person however I doubt that any of the information contained in the article can be verified by reliable sources. Guest9999 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Consensus indicates that this is a notable event, and the nomination is possibly WP:POINTy as it's made by a single purpose account. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is news, doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Ac 767 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC) — Ac 767 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, suspected hoax. A quick search for the subject (excluding Bebo) gets all of 19 unique ghits, none related. MER-C 08:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced personal essay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as recreation of previously deleted AFD material with no significant improvement over issues addressed in said AFD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was deleted before, but this is a new and substantial version, so I thought best to take to AfD again. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about a Desperate Housewives episode that "originally aired" in September of 2008 (think about it), created by an editor with no prior edit history. Impossible to verify whether this is genuine insider info or a planted foiler. Delete as unverifiable. Bearcat (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REdirected to Self-replicating machine. Black Kite 08:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable OR. The WP editor that created the page is the author of the cited article. The article has not yet been published (cites vol 3 issue 1 whereas [30] lists the current issue as vol 2 issue 4. Author claims it is in a forthcoming issue. Topic is already a section in Self-replicating_machine of which it is a subtopic - would propose merge if it wasn't all already there. Ripe (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The placement of the concept may not be appropriate as a separate article. On this, I agree. Indeed, such is mentioned in the comments associated with enlistment within Self-replicating machines.
As to notability, we will leave time to demonstrate such. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Redirect to Self-replicating_machine. Wait until the section on partial construction becomes large enough to warrant its own article, then make this article. Jkasd 18:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete userreq - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of Pages from a set of ill-considered disambiguation pages, two of which have already been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulgaris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserabilis) and another of which is near deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canus). This one These should also go, for the reasons specified in the other AfDs. Deor (talk) 07:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Supposedly released May 2006 on an album that is to be released May 2008. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Supposedly to be released August 8. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Not a single yet, supposedly to be released November 17. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladies Man(Singer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Release date is almost a year from now. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. No assertion of notability, unverifiable, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball &c., &c. Nothing here to suggest this is anything other than an elaborate hoax. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references at all. States album peaked #23 on Billboard Top 200. Billboard.com Search turns up no results. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 07:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The result was speedy deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not played in a fully professional league, and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from the fact that he wouldn't satisfy notablity criteria, there's no mention of him on Stalybridge Celtic's homepage, and no relevant ghits when searching for "Paul Derbyshire stalybridge (with the exception of wiki pages)... and his height is 3 ft 8 in ?!? Very dubious. Bettia (talk) 10:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced for a year. WP:NOR. Most Google hits seem based on Wikipedia or its mirrors. Yamara ✉ 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - lack of external sources so notability not demonstrated. Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Gaming convention in Texas. Unclear notability. Sources are trivial. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 06:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by PeaceNT (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debut album from a non-notable band, not yet released. Delete without prejudice against recreation after the album is released. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 06:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete it, it has historical significance of an upcoming bands debut album. Mirrored Love (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay firstly why cant you guys just let our page be.... why would we bother putting something up we didnt think was worthwhile, it makes me sad to think that you guys dont appreciate what we're doing here....='(.....y r u all against us =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrored Love (talk • contribs) 07:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article had a prod removed by an anonymous user stating if this article is deleted major policies in wikipedia would need to be changed. I fail to see the resoning behind these statements as this article fails WP:WEB assuming IRC networks fall under this. Original prod created for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia " Also note many other IRC Networks are being proposed for deletion under notability, see IRC Network COI Virek (talk) 05:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. No bias to future nominations, but no particular desire on the community's part to delete this seems to exist. WilyD 14:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is to be considered for deletion or expansion as the main body of the article is merged into article Krishna as a separate section. Wikidās-ॐ 11:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people have heard of Miami Beach, but it isn't actually that large a city (pop. 90,000). I don't believe that this politician's career meets WP:POLITICIAN. We have no inherent notability standard for mayors, and I prefer inclusion only for cities of 100,000 and up. But he wasn't even mayor, just a commissioner whose fellow commissioners chose him to be vice mayor for a while, and now he's just city attorney. Created as part of a group of UF alumni, prodded, then recreated, so effectively a contested prod. Dhartung | Talk 07:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEO and WP:NOR. At first glance this article appears to have some validity as a possible theory or sci-fi concept, but on closer examination it is merely a personal essay on a fictional concept, and a person claims to have written the wiki article based on his own thoughts.[31] The article claims that a Heinlein novel may have been the original source of the idea, but Heinlein doesn't actually use this phrase to describe the concept. This article basically usurped the original and far more recognizable context in mod (computer gaming). A google search for "total conversion" and "science" does turn up a few real-world applications of the phrase, but they appear to be WP:FRINGE. However, I'll leave that judgment to editors who are better-versed in the (real) sciences. I also have to wonder if there is a real-world theory that could serve as a target for merge or redirect. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete requirement for non-trivial independant coverage not addressed by keeping side. Notability not therefore established. Spartaz Humbug! 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comedy group. One of their writers was listing in a magazine, and the group received trivial mention in an article bemoaning YouTube celebrities. Does not satisfy WP:N, in my opinion. ZimZalaBim talk 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN Blogger Nakon 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the Byte magazine article does refer to the three companies as the 1977 trinity, it's clear that this is simply a rhetorical flourish, and not intended as some sort of proper name. Indeed, there are no other references to these companies by that name outside of this one Byte article, Wikipedia, and its mirrors. In other words, this was an offhand description that isn't, in and of itself, a discrete and notable topic. The article should be deleted and mention of the term, if the editors of that article deem it notable, should be moved into History of computing hardware. Nandesuka (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G1 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. The term was apparently originated by the article's author. No references, no Google hits in this context. Fails WP:MADEUP. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per invalid nomination and that the article has been well sourced. (non-administartive closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this article should be deleted, it is on a non notable "internet" radio show. There are no impartial secondary sources, there are no sources apart from the radio show itself. The show does not meet the criteria for inclusion of media organization. There are no ratings figures. There is probably more wrong with it too. SuperSuperBoi (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It'd be safe to say that there's nothing keepable in there. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist, likely COI issues at play. Also listing his album. Recommend Delete both. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Scientizzle 15:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. The three references that the article provides don't cover him, they cover this one opera that he happened to write, and he is mentioned as an aside. In addition, the references provided aren't reliable seconday sources required by WP:BIO. Gets nothing in Google News. Therefore, Delete. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sawyer is an assistant professor of music at Amherst who studied with Pulitzer prize-winning composer Leon Kirchner and won honors for his compositions at the Tanglewood Music Center. The Washington Post said Sawyer "weaves powerful statements into" his music, while the American Record Guide called him "a composer of considerable skill and stature." Sawyer's work has been released on the Albany Records label.
The result was keep Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in the article to suggest notability. —G716 <T·C> 01:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow? In June? (deleted) Tony Fox (arf!) 03:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No claims to notability. Band that is making the album has no article and various articles about them have been deleted previously going by the article "owners" contribution history. All references are Youtube, or group owned blogs or Myspaces. Most of the article is also crystal balling. Incidentally also created by user who appears to be the artist in question. Canterbury Tail talk 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete both, fails WP:MUSIC as the band is a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization, just a small local club. Article does not contain any references, just a single external link to its own site. Though the article states the organization has been around for what amounts to be more than 75 years, age is not a criteria for notability, especially for an organization that is generally not considered notable under Wikipedia guidelines. Besides, there are no off-site references provided to document this. Hellno2 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is why we and our suporters have till now not pushed to add all this info as till this week we did not know this. Now that we are under the light we will try our best to be more than equal to the many other Wikipeadia hiking/trail pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.28.64.254 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our club is as important to the beginings of the Appalachian Trail and 120 mile Mason Dixon Trail as the PATC that you have listed on Wiki. We have built it from the beginings and give many things back to the comunuity for public hiking. Without us and KTA and other groups there would be 3,500 fewer miles of trail in PA! Guess some day I will figure you guys out. Do you have somthing that does not look like a 50 page leagal doc that I could read to gain a clue. All I have been linked to so far read so lawer like are hard to get a feel for what Wiki really is. Any info pages that are people friendly and not leagle stuff?Hikingb5 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am actually reviewing those other articles on hiking, canoeing, and other outdoors clubs that Hikingb5 is talking about, and I have found several of them do exist, yet do not seem to meet notability requirements. In the next week or so, I am considering putting them into a bundled AFD. Hellno2 (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]