The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been tagged for WP:N since December 2007, I am not really sure if the community will think notability tag should come off or if the article should be deleted. As the topic of notablity has not been addressed I assume that it fails WP:N Jeepday (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. By User:Jeepday (G8). Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page deleted for being Nonsense, leaves discussion page redundant. Bit Lordy (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Concerns were not addressed that this is effectivley a foreign dicdef. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a Japanese-English dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album by non-notable band. The band is currently nominated for speedy deletion for failing to meet WP:MUSIC, but there is no provision for speedy deleting albums. Corvus cornixtalk 23:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'd go with it being a hoax too, seeing that there are no Google hits for anyone by that name. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax article with no hits on google for a Rangers player called Dexter Peeps nor Worsley Wanderers and nothing for the book used as a source ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged to List of antivirus software by Ohconfucius. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this may be useful for some, Wikipedia is not a guide, this 'article' is not encyclopaedic. Россавиа Диалог 23:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a personal essay consisting of original research and opinions. It is not written in a neutral tone. It has the authors' names on it implying a claim of ownership. It does not look like it could be converted into a proper encyclopedia article. Speedy, Prod and other valid tags have been removed without explanation. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable; the ref links to a short news clip that does not feature Susan Berkley at all (it features Pat Fleet, who is mentioned briefly in this article) Chzz ► 22:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Merging is left as an editorial decision.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Feel free to create the redirect if you feel it is applicable. Based on this discussion, nobody seems to think it should be kept as is. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has two Google hits, one of which is is Wikipedia's. Says it is a new concept; will develop into something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - The concers of the nominator appears to only be theoretically addressed, as in, "somebody else will add the refs and clean it up." On top of that, a majority supported deleting this article with a few reccomending merge then delete. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. A collection of unsourced trivia and related original research. Delete as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Allen3 talk 22:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial page, deleted several times. A user has created a version better than those previously deleted. Page created to get community consensus as to whether it should remain Mallanox 21:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RS coverage is trivial and ghits don't establish notability needed per WP:ORG which says, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page suffers from two related problems. First, it is impossible to demarcate what is an apex predator because the term is generic, not a strict category. Thus, second, it is riddled with OR. People take the definition of "apex predator," look at some animal page, and decide "ya, I'll add it to the list." It's almost completely unsourced because most of the entries were off-the-top-of-the-head additions by various editors applying the definition themselves. And it will remain unsourced because, again, it's a generic term that biologists don't often explicitly assign to species. The second section speaks for itself: Extinct predators that were likely apex predators. "Were likely" is self-evidently OR.
However, I hope this can be basically a merge rather than a delete. One scrupulous editor did add some academic sources a couple of years ago; I have moved them here. I intend to incorporate relevant info to the main apex predator page. As a list is inherently unmanageable on this topic, choice examples can be used on the main search target, with sources that explicitly mention species vis-a-vis the term. Marskell (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate in an election, no other claim to notability that would satisfy WP:BIO. Blueboy96 21:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the category as it is about an amorphous family. No sources for notability, it seems to be just a Wikipedia extension of some private websites - fails notablity guidelines. Doug Weller (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just someone who appeared on Britain's Got Talent and didn't win. Buc (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Redirected to Proxy bypass. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, this sounds an awful lot like a proxy bypass, and for seconds, it's written in a how-to tone Yngvarr (c) 21:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Ziggy Sawdust 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreated material deleted through a previous discussion (WP:CSD#G4) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod for a movie that is "in production". WP:CRYSTAL and so on. And it appears, from the "2nd nom", that this is not a new discussion, prior discussion was delete; would a CSD apply in this case? Yngvarr (c) 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fails WP:ORG, as there is no coverage in reliable third-party sources. It provides insufficient context for a reader, and _any_ information at all about it is sparse. No Google News hits at all. ffm 20:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rough consensus is that the list has too many issues at the moment. Contact me if you want a copy of the article to work on sourcing or as a basis for adding content to individual articles.--Kubigula (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable list - there's a distinct lack of verification, with a single source. No proof that any of these bands are or aren't Satanists (except for the one reference for Tenacious D). This is little more than listcruft - holds no encyclopedic value, most bands are from the extreme metal genre, of which nearly all bands are often associated with Satanism, whether it be lyrically or otherwise. Due to a critical lack of sources or variability, this is full of original research ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was do...something. To be honest, while it's clear that there's a consensus to not have this article in the main namespace, there's no consensus on what specifically should be done with it. There seems to be slightly more support for a merge than for outright deletion, but the merge target with the most support doesn't exist yet.
So let's do this. Rather than delete the article, I'm going to userfy it to User:Smile a While/Car life cycle. This will allow other editors time to expand it to fill the new title while reflecting consensus that the current article is unsuitable for Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 04:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sort of POV fork, though not to express a controversial point of view as is usually the case. The problem here is that this concept has been covered already in articles such as antique car, vintage car, classic car and used car. The concept of an "old car" is no more notable than an "old boat," "old person," "old dog" or "old" anything else. Moreover, this article depends quite a bit on original research or unsourced opinion of the author. The author has provided several sources, but few really address "old cars" as a concept in and of itself. The concept of an "old car" is simply not notable enough for an article, especially when it is already covered in other articles. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No good sources to meet verifiability and notability...just a whole lot of original research. — Scientizzle 19:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Article is written by the subject. A google search for "Brent J. Cole" turns up a whopping four hits: two of which are Wikipedia links, one of which is presumably the subject's own website and the last one being a ZoomInfo page. CyberGhostface (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Woodville Hall, Redirect Tapton Hall of Residence. Fram (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable residence hall, creater deprodded on the grounds that another residence hall article exists. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has been substantially edited by its subject, and pretty much reads like a vanity autobiography. No references to provide evidence of notability and does not seem to fulfil any criterion of WP:MUSIC - it has been tagged for notability since April. ~ mazca talk 18:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite lots of over-the-top claims, the man has only produced one film, The Divine Emerald, which according to imdb, was only ever shown at the New York International Independent Film and Video Festival. Whether or not he is the rightful king of his tribe, and whether or not his work is as stupendous as the article says, there aren't any sources backing up these claims. There are also only 55 Google hits for the name, and it appears that there is more than one person with that name. Corvus cornixtalk 17:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, low peaking single, doesn't deserve to an article Caldorwards4 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, not notable Bstone (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No reliable sources is the correct conclusion. Fram (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a future TV show without any sources. A Google search for "the duel II" returns no results about this TV show, except a TV.com discussion which refers to this Wikipedia article. A search of the MTV web site shows no TV show called The Duel 2, The Duel II, or other similar title. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (see WP:BALL) Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this page should remain in tack for now. Since all the sources have been listed.74.193.223.111 (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A3. Pedro : Chat 20:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The article makes no claim that the subject is notable and no references found online to support notability. Tagged as non-notable since November 2007. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G12 by Gwen Gale , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to establish notability using qualified references. The only references listed are directed to a personal website that is created by and for the subject of the article. Additionally, the username of the creator of this page is the name of the subject, which is a likely indication that the article, referenced website, and user, all belong to this individual, who is evidently promoting themself. I have also removed the addition by the same user to the List of child prodigies article. Freqsh0 (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G3 by Gwen Gale, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A nice little story about an inside joke. No reliable sources provided, none found. Couldn't find a speedy category that fit. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing added in a week, I don't believe that this article makes any effort to show why it is notable and should stay in wikipedia. Ged UK (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Note; references are not reviews but simply mentions they were playing on a particular week in the wider context of bar reviews. Blowdart | talk 16:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no references that this movie/tv episode exists. Looks like fan speculation. A new series The Suite Life on Deck will be produced. This article is speculation/invention about the last episode of the The Suite Life of Zack & Cody or the first episode of The Suite Life on Deck and is not backed up by anything. NrDg 16:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S.S. Tipton
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as hoax. Remember that AfD is not a vote; consensus is most important. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unreferenced, topic seems unlikely, links (in Ukranian) do not seem to be related to the subject, sole editor* has recently started three other hoax articles. Unable to locate any sources, reliable or otherwise. (*One other edit of content is by an ISP in California, main editor has numerous edits related to Stanford University.) Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Elmerfike (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Elmerfike (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested to merge this article into Sierra Nevada (United States), but there where 2 objections. Although I disagree with the reasons, I don't think it would be appropriate to merge this to the main article.
I suggest to delete this article (or merge it, depending on the result of this AFD) because:
1.In my opinion, There is no real encyclopidic content here.
2. There is no "Further Reading" section in the main article, and I think this is a mistake.
P.S Please forgive me if I made any mistakes, because this is the first AFD I'm opening. תחי מדינת ישראל (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a space or with full quotes there's no off-wiki indication that this proposed tram stop exists in discussion, let alone is a notable tram stop. There doesn't appear to be mention of it in the official discussion of the expansion.
The result was Speedy Delete as G7 - Author Request. Article History shows that almost all substantive content was introduced by original author, who is also the nom here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I created this article I now feel that I was in error. The November 9th Society and its current leader Kevin Quinn have both received third party coverage but Terry Flynn has not and indeed I created this article based on a profile on the N9S website that has long since been taken down. As such I do not feel this article is encyclopedic and accept that I was in error to create it. Keresaspa (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accidentally used CSD A7, and got declined because the article is about software. I still think this page should be deleted because the subject does not seem to be notable, and in any case, it is apparently in the early stages of development. Probably because of this, there are no references anywhere on the internet about this software. J.delanoygabsanalyze 15:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as unverified, unsourced, probable spam. No prejudice against recreation or userfying for improvment if/when the article's creator (or anyone else) can find reliable, third party sources that talk about this institute in a neutral way. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advert-like article on sleep institute. Speedied several times as spam. Now slightly less spammy. Fairly obvious COI (and apparent sockpuppetry). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as having no sources. Alex Muller 21:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC: not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. I'm not convinced that we should delete anything only because a LP says "please delete me", but this particular subject, even without the purported statement (that as far as I can tell is not verified, only assumed to be true), has borderline notability at best. Consensus here says delete with valid arguments above and beyond "I want my page gone", so delete it is. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent Formatting Error at AfD suggests that another user attempted to nominate for deletion placing tag on their behalf Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is Richard Stern, the subject of the article. I am requesting that the article be taken down for two reasons:
1. I am trying very hard to reduce my internet presence because I have career aspirations that would be impossible to meet with prospective employers referencing my wikipedia page; it has become a major hindrance to my personal and professional life and as such it is in my best interest to have it removed.
2. I am not a notable person. If I had any semblance of notability when the page was created, which was nowhere near universally agreed upon, it is long past. Further, the major basis for my article's creation - my youtube page at youtube.com/rickyste - has been removed. The article should be removed because in all honesty, no one cares about me, nor should they; I think you will find no one rushes here trying to save the page on its merits.
I plead with you to respect my wishes and conform to Wikipedia's own standards for article inclusion. Thank you. 64.245.33.164 (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on this page don't check out. The journals are real, but the articles don't exist. I suspect a hoax. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. Neıl 龱 10:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly a hoax, I can find absolutely no evidence this film exists. Supposed a sequel to The Intruder (1986 film). –– Lid(Talk) 14:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted speedily as G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet notability; page is written like an advertisement; a similarly-titled page, Maxwells House, with identical content was speedied twice yesterday as a violation of G11 User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm being bold here and redirecting it to CafePress.com as per Fred Durham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is the cofounder of a company with Fred Durham, who's starting to look like a WP:SNOW at his own AfD[15]. It may seem reductive to say that if one goes, they should both go, but it's hard to see how Maheesh Jain is notable if Durham isn't, since Durham outranked Jain as CEO. Qworty (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixtape, fails WP:MUSIC. Contested PROD. Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, this is an album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.190.210 (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — 99.227.190.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested proposed deletion. Notability of subject is not established, no third-party references. Khatru2 (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was wrong deletion forum. Redirect deletion discussion take place over there. KTC (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant redirect, causing inconsistencies with search engines such as Google - which usually refers to this redirect rather than the article directly. Usually redirects to outdated version of an article - takes over a day to be fully consistent. Dark Prime (talk)
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. With one small exception, not substantively edited since its creation on 18 March 2005 Snappy56 (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If anyone wants the deleted content for use elsewhere, just let me know. --jonny-mt 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. An expression unfamiliar to the great majority of Irish people. Not substantively edited since its creation on 16 October 2005 Snappy56 (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as an apparently non-notable product. --jonny-mt 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing noteworthy here Bardcom (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please relist this discussion to elicit more comments please --Bardcom (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by User:Chrislk02 per CSD G11, blatant advertising. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag was removed.Unsourced and no assertion of notability. Reads like Spam. NAHID 08:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (non-admin closure), under WP:CSD#G7. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant POV text pushing the fringe idea (apparently peddled these days by some extreme nationalist sources) that there was a "genocide" against ethnic Macedonians (no concrete information is provided when and at whose hands). Sources are obviously not even remotely reliable. Note that the current text of the article is shamelessly stolen from the Armenian genocide article; the claim about death marches is taken from there and seems to be a total fabrication when applied to the Macedonian case. I can't read the alleged sources (both in Macedonian), but I'd bet these "death marches" aren't mentioned even in those. The same seems to be the case for the alleged numbers of victims. This article is a case not only for deletion, but in my view also for sanctions against the author (Makedonij (talk · contribs)) for blatant disruptive editing. I'd encourage uninvolved admins to check the author's previous record and consider WP:ARBMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable show ju66l3r (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like a hoax and has no sources. There is no clear evidence of it on Google and IMDb reference may be a hoax too. No evidence of notability is presented, Grahame (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor recently tagged this as WP:HOAX, which might well be the case [21]. But even if this person actually exists, he thoroughly fails WP:ATHLETE. Qworty (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied, as copyvio. Deiz talk 23:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crufty / ad-like corporate history. Looks like a copyvio but unable to confirm, might just be the writing style. Contested speedy. Deiz talk 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-existent subject, light rail in Albany, New York, and the only "source" thus far is an opinion piece that says Albany should have light rail. The supposed details of the future service are actually the recommendations of the writer, who appears to be an authority but says nothing about whether his opinions are part of any formal plans. Furthermore, the article appears to say that Albany has already decided to go a different way for the time being at least. Wikipedia is neither a soapbox or a crystal ball. Unless some reliable sources are found and cited to cover this subject properly, I recommend it be deleted. (If it does survive somehow, it should be moved to "Light rail in Albany, New York", because there appears to be no proper noun for this potentially future service, and Albany is ambiguous. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several reasons for deletion. First, no convincing Google hits. Second, no assertion of particular notability - certainly nothing verifiable. Third, no valid references: the first link leads to a self-published forum, the second doesn't load, and the third isn't about him. As an aside, this is the author's only contribution, and certain phrases ("the nonsense teachers are teaching children these days", "how media is controlling our life") are amusingly inappropriate. In sum, though: no real references or assertion of notability; possible self-promotion. Biruitorul Talk 05:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable recording, fails WP:MUSIC. Much material contributed by an account with the same name as the studio. Likely spamming. Contested speedy (another editor kept reverting the speedy as quickly as Twinkle could process it). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I, the original nominator, withdraw my request. Article needs improvement, but the library is clearly notable after reading comments left by those involved in creation of the article. Britanica article also verifies notability. I urge those close to the subject matter to improve/expand wording of the article to keep people from mistaking this is a run of the mill town library again. Sorry for wasting anyone's time here. --Airtuna08 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTE; Town libraries not notable. Only famous libraries like the one in New York City for example are notable. What's next? Town supermarkets? Airtuna08 (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, certainly no consensus to delete, but please add the references mentioned.. Bduke (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from being the great-grandson of Benjamin Franklin, and the son of a red-linked politician, I can't find anything about this guy that gives him notability. Because notability is not inherited and without his famous relatives he is otherwise completely non-notable, I don't see any reason to keep this article. DesertAngel 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion are much stronger than those for keeping (including even excluding IAR and the incorrect reading of WP:ATHLETE). Fram (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a biography of child who received some press coverage for pitching a perfect game in Little League Baseball. This article represents a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. In first nomination (which was closed no consensus), the closing admin described the decision as "insane." I tried merging the article with 2005 in baseball, but my edit was reverted, leading me to request deletion again. BRMo (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as G3 (pure vandalism/hoax). Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this doesn't actually exist - couldn't find any references. I may be wrong though,so I brought it here. Chris (talk) 04:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No sign of notability here. Black Kite 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable; spam-like Chzz ► 04:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G4 and salted. Mattinbgn\talk 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability criteria. Chris (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without further verification of facts, I'm concerned about the controversial nature of this list. I cannot verify the credibility of the source, hence this nomination. Chzz ► 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made up in school one day Chris (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xfd rather than speedy to give the user a shout - maybe it could be improved into a reasonable article; otherwise not worth too much bother about. See tags on article for reasoning. Chzz ► 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Tiptoety. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this meets notability guidelines Chris (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep No consensus to delete or merge so a default Keep. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the topic of this article is suitable to be included in Wikipedia. The article seems to be mostly a collection of information that is of historical and lexicographical interest but not notable or encyclopedic enough for an encyclopedia. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notability Paxsimius (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close in favor of already-running AfD. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an opinion piece clearly aimed at the US Congress. The writer is trying to make a point about how current events being taken are illegal. Regardless of the validity of that statement, this has no place in an encyclopedia. Mblumber (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Schools of the Sacred Heart. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable elementary school. Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Is it quite divided in regards to arguments related to the notability issue. So as a result, it is a No consensus --JForget 22:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only one line in article now. Maybe we should delete until someone wants to contribute something substantial. Mblumber (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this surname, among millions, is notable; WP:NOT an Indian surname directory Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable journalist DimaG (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not shown DimaG (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notabilty claimed by winning competition set by local recording studio. Speedy and maintentence tags removed by article's creator Richhoncho (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, hasn't been touched in almost 2 years, and lacks notability. Also possibly covered by other articles, rendering this one redundant. Kristamaranatha (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:FRINGE, already covered in similar articles. Black Kite 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fringe speculations with no 3rd party refs Vsmith (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless reliable third party sources can be provided per WP:FRINGE. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe Merge into Expanding Earth theory Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not fathom the terminology "fringe" of Science and "unsupported speculation" to describe, negatively, this entry! I have read his 2008 book, MAVRICK'S EARTH AND UNIVERSE, and found it useful. It is not likely the EVERY theory starts out as a mere nugget of truth and then gets elaborated as time passes. ME & U offers lots of factual underpinnings while, it seems to me, that vociferous naysayers say only stick with the ACCEPTED theory. By the way naysayers, there are many fully developed theories about the whole Earth's geophysical behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.211.102 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability, although perhaps this idea warrants mentioning in Expanding Earth theory.Adrock828 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New sources for reliable third-party review of the core mechanism for WEDD: As seen in his biography, the author's collective body of work centers around a new concept/theory/idea which has gained much widespread and reliable notability. "He is most noted for deducing the composition of the inner core of Earth as being nickel silicide, not partially crystallized nickel-iron metal. More recently, he has suggested planetocentric nuclear fission reactors as energy sources for the gas giant outer planets and stellar ignition by nuclear fission." Amongst his body of work is the subject of this article which relies on the core mechanism put forth in his collective works. Thus, this article's subject must be seen as part and parcel of the collective body of work, which has received widespread reliable third-party review, as seen in the newfound sources below:
In addition to these, a Google search on the author yields much more coverage in third party blog pundits and references in science related collections of research projects. These all support the case for widespread notability of the author's core concepts, which he has become very well known for.
I am not under the illusion, however, that all these will not be contested as they do not refer to the article's subject directly. But I do make the case for the necessity of these core ideas being intrinsically bound to the subject of this article, and thus establishing a thread of reliable third-party regard to the concept of Whole-Earth Decompression Dynamics. If nothing else, these new sources shut the door on the dismissing nature of whether WEDD is worthy of notice. They likewise prove a very high probability that WEDD is included within the widespread regard of the author's body of work... all focusing on the core mechanism for Whole-Earth decompression dynamics. -- MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion was opened a full week ago. The most vocal contributor, MichaelNetzer, has now rested his case. I also have nothing more to say. Would an admin please come in now, rule on the consensus, and take the corresponding action? It would be nice to have this off the table. --Art Carlson (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much appreciate the effort evidenced by the discussion above and wish to add a few comments. WEDD is wholly separate and distinct from expanding Earth theory, just as it is distinct from plate tectonics theory; it is in fact the unification of the two. Much of the science of the Earth began with the mistaken belief that the Earth as a whole is like an ordinary chondrite meteorite. In the 1970s I began to discover that Earth is instead like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. Since then, I have begun to understand the nature of the Earth, its formation, its dynamics, energy sources, and magnetic field from the perspective of Earth being in the main like an enstatite chondrite meteorite. WEDD is just one part of the picture. I have put all this together in my recently published book "Maverick's Earth and Universe". It will certainly take time for the science community to grasp the full import; funding and careers are at stake. Moreover, many in academia try to bury new ideas, instead of discussing and debating them. All too often young people are being taught science "facts" which might not be facts at all. On the discussion page of WEDD, a teacher made perhaps the best arguments for the page remaining: "Allow the students the chance to be given the choice to make progressive and influential decisions, so that they may make contributions to think and reason and analyze for themselves new scientific concepts." Again, thank each of you for your efforts on behalf of WEDD,Marvin Herndon (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CSD#G12, copyright violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft and trivia; mostly unsourced, mostly not notable Doceirias (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, "The Grand Bolivian Hamster" I think I can say this is more than probably a hoax. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is most probably a hoax. Captain panda 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Clearly a hoax. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a hoax. Captain panda 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to The Dethalbum. A clear consensus. In addition, there were no reliable, secondary sources either in the article, or produced during the AfD, to support notability. There was no sourced content to merge. TerriersFan (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks proper sources and does not seem to assess any notability. See WP:A, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:WAF. ShadowJester07 ►Talk 01:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and move to Shilghati. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here I am putting a town up for afd, I fully realize the presumed notability of populated locations. I also realize that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and that Wikipedia:Verifiability is a policy that starts with The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. That having been said, I found this article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and did not find anything resembling a reliable reference.Ghit web Ghit books Most of what I found seems to circle back around to the Wikipedia article. The best resource I found was Tripura Written by suchetan kr mukherjee Sunday, 01 July 2007 at googling.in which is basically a rewrite of Tripura that even links back to assorted Wikipedia articles. The official tourist site http://tripura.nic.in/ttourism1.htm does not mention Hwlwighati as far as I can tell. I only have one request, if you want to vote keep, find and post a single reliable reference to the article and I will vote keep as well. Jeepday (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other then being a mayoral candidate once and a provincial politician candidate twice in Charlevoix and also being a former provincial public servant, I have not seen anything that suggests that he passes WP:BIO. This article also does not indicate that he is well-known outside of the Charlevoix region. The article mostly indicates that he was a candidate in the 2007 by-election against Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois but was not updated even though he lost. JForget 01:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. --Jamie☆S93 03:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find an article about this team, so I don't think one for a specific season is warranted. If a decent article could be made on the team itself, that would be a better start. Chzz ► 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this is a table of entirely unsourced information concerning future events (and Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball). KurtRaschke (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as far as I'm concerned working titles are talk matter, and they are on there, so this article can be blanked. Chocobogamer (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as G12. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 08:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable biography. No citations of independent reliable sources. None that I could find independently. The article appears to be a copy from http://gracefullife.net/kvsimon.htm Work permit (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per author's request (blanking the page). Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written as an essay; the userpage version is already being discussed for deletion. Ironholds 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. No Google hits other than the article itself. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. No encyclopedic value. Coasttocoast (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The consensus was clear. In addition, the page is wholly unsourced and, despite the extended time, no evidence has been adduced that this record (hey that dates me!) meets WP:MUSIC. I would add that global ghits butters no parsnips; it is the quality of available sources that count. I see no reason not to set up a redirect, which I have. TerriersFan (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Chzz ► 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by The Enchantress Of Florence. No evidence of notability. Katr67 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Lack of notability. Malinaccier (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom of prod contested by The Enchantress Of Florence. Katr67 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Portal (video game). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unsourced an frankly frivolous, basically contains a verbose version of what is already contained at Portal (video game) peppered with unnecessary trivia of a character that appeared only in a single game. Totally unnecessary article. Delete. Rehevkor (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]