< February 29 | March 2 > |
---|
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability for Wikipedia NorthernThunder (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR essay. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: non notable creature with no outside sources. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:non notable, orphaned, and unsourced. shadzar|Talk|contribs 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, this article needs work or it will not likely pass its next AfD. (1 == 2)Until 17:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to satisfy WP:CORP; seems mostly self-promotional. ZimZalaBim talk 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: non notable obscure monster with no references or citation, and appearing in a single publication. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a personal essay which duplicates Origins of World War I. As the title doesn't seem to be a plausible search term I don't think that converting it to a redirect is appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for any problems caused but when i typed in the search for this subject it never apeared. Anyway. I am more intent now in creating a page on the Young Archaeologist Club. I f any of you are interested or want to help pleases send me a message. Also. How do you send messages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.236.140 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete faithless (speak) 07:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Dungeons & Dragons creature- no real-world significance or third party sources. May have some level of significance in Darksun- I am unfamiliar with the setting, and so cannot comment, but the article does not indicate that it does. J Milburn (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snow keep. Police chiefs of major cities or their equivalents are inherently notable. Blueboy96 13:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual, not enough independent sources to verify information and notability. -Nard 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed]
templates. Greenshed (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:non notable creature with no citations or references. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. As identified in the debate there is a single reliable source on this. On studying the source, I agree that it is at the most trivial level - it is mere factual reporting and does not talk about anything that makes this farmers' market interesting, but it does reveal that it has a grand total of 15 (!) vendors; it is just a piece of local cover. The other points regarding the content of the article are also very true. I'm not sure this couldn't have been speedied as spam requiring a total rewrite, to be honest. -Splash - tk 22:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the almost spammy advertising, this article is about a run-of-the-mill farmers' market. It's not the oldest, the biggest, the most colourful or anything that makes it anything more than just a farmers' market like thoudands of others all over the world. Emeraude (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A3 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
page has no content —Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC) Granite07 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G7 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - page has no content Granite07 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep The USGS entry show it exists/existed, places are notable. Gnangarra 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a census designated place. Part of a larger hoax, although the place IS real. See WP:AN/I for more details. Has no significant references other than two that mention it in passing. All relevant other Wikipedia entries have been deleted or are on their way to be deleted, see Wettershaw Manor, The History of Shaw, Konrad VII von Tegerfelden, Shaw Preservation Society etc. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, KeepI want say that I am Tim mann out of NY, I put up history that I have worked on for over 10 years, Mr Brewcrewer, how hids under a name, did his study in less thr 48 hr. YES i put it up in one day, i had the day off, i work for a living, I had it on paper and put it up, I have tons more to put up too. I would have loved to give you more so you could find it alot faster but brewcewer want it all down. Note that many of you if taken a little time , is finding things on it, but I thank you you took longer then 2 days to try and come to an a Fact. A hoax, No you Mr brewcrewer are, two days and he knows it all, most of you have found thing on the House,Town and Family, If i would have been given more time i would have added a lot, and i woul hope that others would too. But history ill be lost.Mr brewcrewer did not like one thin and went after it all, Jelles ha, Note He took down things on the Conaradines family members i put up, NOTE that as to just Rudolf having no kids, is wrong, on WP, there are 6 other pages that say he did, one of the was Duke of Swabia Berthold I, but he kows all the great histoy man. He took down and changet things with out one Refference and source, he did not let you see what was up till he pulled it down. Over a yera ago i went west on a trip, I stoped by and took a tour of Weyyershaw maner I saw shaw and I meet the man, He is who I said he was and it is a photo of him. Learn to take time and look things up and give it some time, you may learn something Mr brewcrwer self made history giant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loveofhistorynut (talk • contribs) 17:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect faithless (speak) 07:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in only one supplement. No in-game significance, no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G11.. bibliomaniac15 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, spammy, inadequate references. ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons monster which has appeared in several supplements, as well as Dragon magazine, but which lacks in-game or real world significance, as well as third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus to keep. (1 == 2)Until 17:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Less than 300 hits on Google for both "David Zarling" and "David A. Zarling". Not quite sure it meets CSD criteria - Article is long, but seems to be a non-notable scientist of some sort. Prod was contested by article creator. Esteffect (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per lack of notability. (1 == 2)Until 17:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress under WP:BIO. Rogreview citation is a self-published site with content heavily based on personal opinion (it's a reviewer site) and is not considered a reliable source to establish notability Vinh1313 (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus to keep and improve. You kept it folks, now please improve it so it meets WP:NOT.. (1 == 2)Until 17:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No more than a dicdef, can be no more than a dicdef, and even includes link to Wiktionary (which has more information than this "article". Emeraude (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: non-notable creature cited as appearing in only one source. no other cites or references. shadzar|Talk|contribs 21:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason - no need for page and causes confusion on other pages Granite07 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Granite07 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nom withdrew with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of this term before. Unsourced and a google search turns up absolutely nothing, likely a neogolism. Mr Senseless (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete faithless (speak) 07:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a few supplements, but of no real in-game significance. No evidence of third party coverage or real world significance. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. No in-game significance, no real-world sources and no first party sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
conserveI d' ont agree with this deletion idea. I have just writed one sentence, when the article was proposed for deletion. The Éditions Robert Laffont are one of the most important francophone book publisher, - its unbelievevable that it should diseapeer from the english wikipedia ! Christophe.Neff (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Go to www.amazon.fr and do a detailed search, putting "Robert Laffont" as publisher, and you get 11 108 returns! (See [3].)Even accounting for double entries, this makes it a major publisher, and the existence of articles in the French Wikipedia fr:Éditions Robert Laffont and Spanish Wikipedia es:Éditions Robert Laffont backs this up. This article is clearly new and needs time to develop, but deletion is a nonsesnse. Emeraude (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep faithless (speak) 05:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fork of Babi Yar Jd2718 (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Ohio State University. There is a clear consensus that this is not substantive out of its parent article. There is no consensus to delete outright, but taking together all those who would not have this stand alone, the situation is pretty clear that this is of primarily or exclusively local interest. I do not find it persuasive to say that because article A is long, all elements B-Z of it therefore earn their own articles. -Splash - tk 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of the context of the university in question, this is an entirely unremarkable bit of ground. If anything needs to be said about this on Wikipedia, then it needs a sentence or at most two at Ohio State University Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just something made up one day in some guy's basement, non-notable (fails the primary notability criterion), probably speedily deletable really, since it doesn't even assert notability (but I'd rather have an AfD record of this for precedential value), and a clear conflict of interest, as the principal author of article is one of the game's inventors. For directly relevant deletion precedents, see: pool bocce, Mexican pool, goof ball, beer-in-hand, flanges, Bjureez, etc. This one was ((prod))ded and (after edits that did nothing to fix this article's notability problems) unprodded on February 4— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A search in any language reveals a wikimirror farm and zero RS coverage. While I acknowledge that internet coverage in Bangladesh may not be extensive, I'd expect *something* if it were notable. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Dungeons & Dragons monster. Minimal in-game significance, and no evidence of any real-world significance. No mention of which books it appears in, and no soruces cited. J Milburn (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited from its customers and I see no reason to keep this article about one of New york's 4,000,000 delis. Caligirl1981 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from the talk page: This appears to be unreferencable? "Gunk culture" returns 2 unusable ghits, as does "Gunk subculture". Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Ie. Neologism and original research. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still no evidence of notability; the only source is an obscure court record about a patent case he lost; yes, had a few patents, but notability is about independent (which his patents are not) reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Nothing cited has ANY coverage of the subject (neither the patents nor the court case say one word about the inventor, so they don't support notability). This is just one in a series of articles written by a family member, for vanity essentially. Dicklyon (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most of the patents McGhee filed were not questioned or challenged and the drapery hook was also patented in Canada which was recognized throughout the entire British Empire, at that time, an area with more population than the US. The Canadian patent was never challenged or questioned. I think this is a great example of how a big business can beat up a little guy and steal his patents (ideas) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegillus (talk • contribs) 07:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC) — Joegillus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP I have to agree with Oakshade and Joegillus. I use this invention in my home as I am sure many people do - it's common sense to include the inventor - his Canadian patent is included in the article - that's good enough for me. That's why 'common sense' is mentioned in the very first section of WP:N.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.184.145 (talk • contribs) — 71.106.184.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Orphaned since 2006. No label. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. The pure volume link gives nothing notable about the band. Also, the pure volume shows that the band has a total of 8 fans. Not notable. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any article with "notable" in the title is suspect. The first part about entertainers at least has a clear criterion for inclusion, though it doesn't make much sense to consider a singer or band notable in the 80's if it had a #1 hit in the US or the UK. Similarly, actors and directors are only notable if they won an Oscar or a BAFTA award. Notable sports figures seem to have been chosen arbitrarily. Notable political figures include Nancy Reagan, Princess Diana and spouses of Canadian prime ministers but no head of state of European countries besides Thatcher. Of course, one might argue: the list just needs to be expanded so that it is complete. But then, we still are left with an arbitrary cut-off for "notability" and we are likely headed towards a 200kb article. Pichpich (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable monster with only one source shadzar|Talk|contribs 20:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in a single supplement. No third party coverage. Possibly deserves a brief mention in the article about the mythical creature, but I doubt it. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. No third party sources and no tours. Delete Undeath (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Article does not mention any source books, but, from memory, they appear in Races of Stone and I doubt very much they have appeared elsewhere, unless it was copied from a book from an earlier edition. In any case, monster has minimal significance, and there is no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appears in a lot of supplements, but of no real significance within the world and there is no evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No record on Soccerbase, and the Saint-Étienne official web site doesn't even have a profile. On that basis, it is assumed that Čaušević has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe | Talk 04:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has raised copyright concerns, but my reason for nomination is that this is material for a C++ programmer's reference manual, not for an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a manual or textbook, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information. PROD removed without comment by the author. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Ty 02:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced artist biography. Article reads like a PR piece. Severe conflict of interest, as the author co-owns the gallery where Sager's work is shown and where the artist is employed as a curator. Also I suspect the author is his wife. Gsearch reveals some local coverage, but notability is questionable. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 19:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per lack of notability. (1 == 2)Until 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, despite source requests for nine months. MSJapan (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as CSD-I2 —αlεx•mullεr 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong way to upload to wikipedia. Possible copyvio. Delete Undeath (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Moreover, WP is not a genealogical resource, and that is all this "article" is. MSJapan (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO, if a biography fails WP:N, as this one apparently does, then WP is not the place for said aticle aboutt he person. ArcAngel (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising. NN org, with no assertion of notability, and only links ot its own site for EL. MSJapan (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above - fails WP:N. Also seems to fall under WP:SPAM. ArcAngel (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 04:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons monster of questionable notability. Appearances in old and new supplements, as well as a rather significant module and articles in Dungeon and Dragon, but no evidence of third party coverage. Due to their prevalence in The Isle of Dread, a merge to our article on the subject may be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons deity, appearing briefly in a single supplement. As far as I know, and as far as the article states, mentioned no where else. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable fictional deity passes WP:N. Consistent with a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons deities. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnotable fictional character which fails WP:N. Inconsistent with an encyclopaedia and belongs instead on a specialised fan wikia. Eusebeus (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in a number of supplements, but is nowhere near canon or iconic. No evidence of third party coverage, or real in-game significance- just another human + animal = intelligent humanoid for NPCs. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons crossbreed. Appeared in one supplement and some other book, but no evidence of any third party references. May deserve a mention somewhere that discusses fey in general. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Has appeared in a couple of supplements and has been featured in an article in Dragon magazine, but I am not seeing any evidence of third party coverage. May warrant a mention along with other demons/Tanar'ri. J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appears in one supplement, no evidence of third party coverage. May deserve a mention somewhere when discussing demons/Tanar'ri. J Milburn (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster. Appeared in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. March is D&D Spring Cleaning Month; you can help. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Philippe | Talk 05:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't seem notable, although the sources have improved considerably from the last deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough now with the improved sources. ArcAngel (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. After relisting, there is still no appetite for deletion, but it's not clear whether a merge as proposed below would be the best proceeding; so I'll leave it to further contemplation. -Splash - tk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. No significant coverage in reliable secondary source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. The discussion of precedent does seem to demonstrate the case for deletion here. That seems to leave the only keeper dealt with, and there is not even a suggestion that it should be merged. Someone can make a redirect if they like, I guess, but it does seem that we don't even often have those from the example below. -Splash - tk 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Survivor contestant who has done nothing of note outside of Survivor. Per precedent, just being a contestant on the show usually isn't enough. And while she has appeared on two seasons, she still has done little of note outside the show, so most of the article would be detailing of her experience. Scorpion0422 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Malinaccier (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable product from a non-notable company. Created by a member of said company and article that has been deleted twice before for blatant advertising. No establishment of notability, the only refs and external links are either belonging to the company in question or are nothing more than a brief mention of its existence or press releases. Reads as advertising copy and I don't see that it can necessarily be improved due to lack of notability.Canterbury Tail talk 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Philippe | Talk 05:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic hints at notability but was speedied at first as that notability wasn't explicitly stated. What notability is stated is rather POVish. Thought it would probably meet speedy but wanted to AfD instead as I had a trace of doubt. SGGH speak! 17:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More on Bullitt
Per Hagley Museum archives:
The legal firm of Bullitt & Chalkley and its successor Chalkley & Camblos practiced corporate and land law in Big Stone Gap, Virginia, from the mid 1880s till the 1940s.
Joshua Fry Bullitt, Jr., was born in Louisville, Kentucky, on July 242, 1856. In 1887, with other capitalists from the Bluegrass region, he moved to Big Stone Gap, where he set up practice with a fellow Kentuckian, Henry Clay McDowell, and dabbled in coal and timber lands. In 1888 they formed the South Appalachian Land Company.
Around 1905 Bullitt formed a new partnership with John W. Chalkley. They found ready clients among the many new coal companies. Bullitt became one of a handful of experts on the arcane subject of Appalachian land titles. In 1890, when the coal boom was in full swing, he organized the Police Guard of Big Stone Gap. The Guard was formed to suppress the more raucous behavior of the mountaineers who periodically poured into town looking for excitement. His fellow policeman, John Fox, Jr., wrote Bullitt into his The Trail of the Lonesome Pine, where he appears as the "Captain of the Guard." Bullitt began working for the Virginia Coal & Iron Company around 1891, and they eventually became his biggest client.
The records document Bullitt's workin corporate and land law: securing charters and deeds, preparing title abstracts, and handling litigation over title conflicts. Among the companies covered are the Virginia, Tennessee & Carolina Steel & Iron Company, the Interstate Coal & iron Company, and the Virginia Iron, Coal & Coke Company. Other large land companies include the Interstate Investment Company, the Mineral Development Company, and the Clinch Valley Coal & Iron Company.
Per Encyclopedia of Virginia biography, 1915:
In 1885 and 1886, Bullitt served in the Kentucky legislature. In 1896, he was a candidate for U.S. Congress.
One of the stories in the Fox book is about the Guard and its captain. Fox's books about Big Stone Gap, including the Trail of the Lonesome Pine, were bestsellers in their day.
Bullitt himself wrote several books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvalaw (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is an article here, but I should have written it before I started posting.
swvalaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvalaw (talk • contribs) 19:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
well, I punched this up a bit, although it still might not be up to snuff swvalaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swvalaw (talk • contribs) 21:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Ty 02:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of notability for this supposed art movement. This has been tagged for several months with no sources added to establish notability. May fall under WP:NEO. freshacconcispeaktome 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a whole load of problems with the article, including non-notabilty Dreamspy (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable organisation, no reliable sources, fails WP:CORP and WP:V Edrigu (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --VS talk 10:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, vanity, probable COI. Photo-journalists are journalists, that's part of what they do, that does not make this one notable. - Kittybrewster ☎ 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any way, this person is mainly a journalist and then a photo-journalist but , once again, .... what does it mean??--Nosferamus (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
banned user. Jehochman Talk 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was stubbified per OTRS ticket #2008030310014816 . John Reaves 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on deletion, posting on behalf new user Pwilliams128 (talk · contribs). User believes article does not assert notability and contains serious factual inaccuracies. Roleplayer (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"sources" that supported that false information. Can you demonstrate with written support of your own evidence that would refute what the article says and would support your side of the story? I certainly wouldn't be able to and unfortunately I am unable to with respect to this article as well. To that point, I would like to express two things: (1) The sources listed in the article do not support what the article actually says. That's the first and biggest problem. I'm sure everyone has better things to do with their time than to read all of the aforementioned sources, however, if you were to do so, you would find that they do not correspond, even loosely, to what is said in the article. If someone can get away with throwing a few sources down which supposedly support the "facts" laid out in an article, without the sources actually being checked, then I can just as easily come along and throw down a few names of non-fiction "mafia" books that supposedly give my side of the story. That's ridiculous and is not what Wikipedia is here for. If the sources in the article supported all of the assertions laid out in the article, then my argument would be much weaker and I would have to take up the fight with the authors and manufacturers of the books themselves. That leads to my second point which is that (2) Wikipedia has been so successful in fighting attempted lawsuits against them because they cannot be held responsible for supplying facts that are put forth in separate media outlets (books, magazines, etc). In this case, however, Wikipedia is allowing factually inaccurate information to remain on a page with no real sources or support. Because of those two points, I feel the deletion of the article would be the most responsible course of action to take. 69.114.153.169 (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, and thanks for the improvements to the page. Fram (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no computer geek but this article reads as either spamish, non-notable, or both. Plus the username of the creator makes this article look like coi and possible self-promotion. -WarthogDemon 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--- DO NOT DELETE ------ DO NOT DELETE ------ DO NOT DELETE ------ DO NOT DELETE ---
I am an engineer that uses ATEasy as a computer language. This language and tool set is tailored to the development of automated test equipment. ATEasy is a valid industry standard. It is used by a significant number of large aerospace companies. If this language is deleted from Wikipedia, then all other programming language references should be deleted as well. I am only a user of this language. I am not employed by, nor has the company that designed ATEasy ever employed me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atedesigner (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — Atedesigner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hello,
I've created the ATEasy topic, ...Yes, I'm heavy user of the ATEasy, I'm also familiar with LabView but prefer using ATEasy language for writing test application. Many of the bashers of ATEasy are from LabView users and the ATEasy page was a candidate several times for deletion by them. There is no reason why LabView or HP VEE (which was also candidate for deletion by LabView users) should not coexist in this huge knowledge base called Wikipedia while ATEasy should not. I understand that programming languages and programmers are emotional and religious about their language - but trying to delete this page all the time is not a way. If you think the page is commercial or looks like advertisement then please make corrections - but please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrATEasy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also am an Engineer who has used ATEasy for over 10 years, and stand behind the product. I don't completely understand the difference from Labviews Post and this one. But, think it would be very foolish to delete ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TestEng (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC) — TestEng (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am an Electronics Technician and have been a user of ATEasy software for about 13 years. It's been a good product from a stable and reliable company over the years. I can understand a debate over what type of material should be included in an internet encyclopedia, but in this world of goods and services, a product so widely used, over so many years, should be considered worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. If Widipedia decides to exclude products altogether, I'm sure the freed up hard drive space would be monumentous, but the hole in Wikipedia would be just as great. OkBelowZero (talk)OkBelowZero —Preceding comment was added at 16:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) — OkBelowZero (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Canterbury Tail's profile states this: “Of late I seem to have spent most of my time going to random articles and cleaning up anything that needs doing to them, that and removing vandalism when and where I find it.” He obviously has too much time on his hands and is putting his 2 cents into something he knows nothing about. His profile makes no mention of having a technical background in test engineering and programming for test. Isn't there some way that the administrators of Wikipedia to verify that the email address I used is a legitimate business and not the same as the article's creator? People can accuss all they want. How will this ever get resolved? It comes down to either trust or verifiable facts. I created an account on Wikipedia to fight this injustice--that is why I haven't edited anything else. This is first time I needed to edit anything. The same most likely goes for everybody else. We were contacted by the ATEasy creators to fight for the software we use.BackspinVortex (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a hoax by a banned user.. bibliomaniac15 22:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by User:Woody. Jfire (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete Jfire (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 12:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already speedy deleted as G5. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:HOAX. ArcAngel (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Jon513 (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film editor. Claim of Elevate Film Festival award not verifiable other than by self-published sources [16] and other claims of notability appear to be vicarious though his 'friends' and 'comrades' nancy (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how a film editor is notable outside of the industry, therefore this article fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a hoax by a banned user.. bibliomaniac15 22:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G5.. bibliomaniac15 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Jamie Braddock. I think I don't want to meet this girl; she can "summon ectoplasmic amphibians that tear the souls from humans". Wow — that takes "always let the Wookie win" to a whole new level. -Splash - tk 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 10:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unfortunately this hasn't been a very thorough discussion, but as it's already been extended twice, I don't think it's going to get any more thorough. If there had been any objection to the article's deletion, this could perhaps be closed as no consensus. Absent any such objection, I believe such a closing would be disingenuous. faithless (speak) 06:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page for non notable individual. Ism schism (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete I could not find many references lectures of him on iskcondesiretree.com web of Chowpati - besides an odd audio link.MBest-son (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gauranga Dasa is a great man. He was a student at the elite Indian Institute of Technology, but gave up a brilliant career to become a monk. He has inspired the lives of thousands of young men and women to lead noble lives. I think that is very notable. Hence, please do not delete his reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.183.186.248 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page reads like a fan page, with no citations of facts, only links to what are essentially other fan pages Tool2Die4 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, WP:CSD#G6, uncontroversial housekeeping, as a duplicate of the much better article at Pokémon: The Rise of Darkrai. It would have worked to just redirect this name to the better article, but I didn't see any reason for keeping the redirect with the extra period in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of self-explanatory. Infinitely superior article already exists at Pokémon: The Rise of Darkrai. Sincerely, Thrashmeister [ U | T | C ] 16:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable monster from the Dungeons & Dragons world, appearing in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --VS talk 10:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, 70 hits "Sonic Cathedral Inc" Rapido (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 10:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable committee within a law school. Article is unsourced, totally original research, and makes no assertion of notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. "Wikipedia is not paper" just means that we should not delete things "because we are running out of space!", not that we should keep everything. Fram (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in a couple of supplements. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This list is incomplete", it says. True. It's also exactly as incomplete as it was when we decided to "keep and expand" over a year ago. As so often with "keep and fix", only the first has been done. There are two main problems for me here: first, it can't be anything else without including huge numbers of substandard and / or critically ignored (read: unsourced from reliable sources) recordings. Second, it's an arbitrary list. What is special or noteworthy about recordings of Franck? If I want the very best recording of any particular work of Franck then I'll go to the BBC CD Review website, sure, we could copy that here, but it would violate copyright. In the absence of objective criteria for selection, and incidentally I do think most of those listed are very good, I odn't see how we can have this article. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - issues include no real world notability. --VS talk 11:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in a couple of supplements. May warrant a mention somewhere if a reference for its relation to the Doom series can be verified, but I think it probably does not warrant an article of its own, even if it is linked. J Milburn (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic; unbounded list of every fruit, vegetable, grain, fluid, and processed product that doesn't happen to have animal products. KellenT 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, my comment was not unsigned, just was not a fancy signature. A lot of people use this as a reference, and information, and this is linked to a lot, as well a lot of sites use this as a reference.- Sugarcubez
The result was Delete --JForget 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster, appears in one supplement. No evidence of any third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G11 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for a non-notable recently invented product. Weregerbil (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
The issue here is whether busybodies with a personal or political agenda can censor discussion in the marketplace of ideas of an innovative and useful advance in technology that will facilitate communication between people.
Rolotext (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced genealogical list of data, the "reigned" does not refer to any particular title or regal position, anything notable would appear to be a repeat of what already exists elsewhere on Wikipedia Roleplayer (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster that has appeared in one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked the page). —David Eppstein (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete hoax: orphaned article, none of the titles mentioned in the article exist in UK peerage. Roleplayer (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Stephen 00:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster mentioned in one supplement. No evidence of third party references. J Milburn (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable to a real-world audience and consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e. a specizalized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both --Stephen 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor character from the Dungeons & Dragons universe, appearing in one redlink sourcebook. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster- inhabitants of a very minor plane, appeared in only one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race. Appeared in one rather minor supplement. No evidence of third party or additional first party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster, appearing in only one supplement. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race. Has appeared in only one v3/v3.5 book, along with a couple from previous editions. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. I used criterion A7, non-notable web content, although [[WP:CSD#G11|G11], blatant advertising, could have applied also. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, appears to be verging on nonsense. EJF (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - no assertion of notability --VS talk 11:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons crossbreed. No evidence of third party coverage. May warrant a mention in our article on Drow. There have been a few named Draeglothes in various D&D supplements, novels and the like, but that is not a reason to have an article. An argument could be made for this being kept, but let that be decided here rather than it just sitting with a notability tag. J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research opinion piece. Weregerbil (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dungeons & Dragons creature which does appear in a number of books, but is not particuarly significant. No evidence of third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable monster from the Dungeons & Dragons universe. There are no third party sources. May be a little more notable than I am aware, as I don't play Psionics, but this article does not indicate that it is. J Milburn (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under G3 criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No news coverage of this supposed upcoming film whatsoever. Searches for "Squirrel Adventure" and this movie's supposed stars also turn up zippo. Even if this movie is real, it's pretty extreme crystalballery. Blueboy96 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor D&D deity introduced in a minor source book. No evidence of third party coverage, and it didn't even get much first party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been offered of the existence or notability of this supposed "unrecognised conurbation"; moreover the associated redirect pages Greater Hastings/Bexhill and Seaspray (conurbation) would appear to be fictitious. This page previously PRODed, PROD endoresed by another editor but removed by original author of the article)) --rossb (talk)
The result was Delete --JForget 01:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IP removed PROD. The PROD notice read, "No sources, something someone invented on YouTube, WP:NFT." - Listing as curtesy; I have no opinion on it. ScarianCall me Pat 12:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are fewer than 100 mentions of Colin Ridgers in google. I can find no evidence of any association between him and Chris Leslie. I can find no evidence of any association between him and an album called "Here There and Everywhere". Without these two associations, he does not count as notable. Ogg (talk) 12:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as unverifiable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that Eileen Davies existed. I can find no evidence that her album "Down the Drain" existed. Ogg (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was. Delete. Please note, I don't have a problem with mention of this instance of a brain in a jar as a mention in the Isolated brain article, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus or a need for a merge. A redirect isn't plausible either, as it is highly unlikely that someone would type this string of characters, complete w/ parentheses and an ampersand. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in, as far as I am aware (and I'm reasonably well-read on the subject) a single supplement, with only a single page or so. Very briefly mentioned in a couple of reviews, but that is already included in the recently expanded article on the supplement it appears in, Libris Mortis. Some of the text is also copied from the entry in LM. To be honest, I think this would struggle to have a decent article on an in-universe Wiki. Bringing it here instead of prodding as D&D monsters are generally a reasonably contentious area. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per (small) consensus, fails music and bio notability guidelines. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article written by an author, on the owner of her publishing company. Fails the Google Test with 71 unique hits including this article, none of which look useful as sources. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 by me —αlεx•mullεr 13:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete non-entity: page created and largely edited by single use editors. No reason for this to be here (or anywhere else for that matter!). Emeraude (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, notability and unreferenced SGGH speak! 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Google search shows 4 ghits [27].This source[28] mention the name, but does not have significant coverage on the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, Consensus is that the sources are sufficient to write an encyclopedic article. Davewild (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely outlandish claims which are mostly unverified, or verified from extremely poor quality sources. Majority is unsalvagebly PoV. Jefffire (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that 9 people died, where they died and much of the events up to their deaths. But just about everything I've seen on internet sites where there has been any critical thinking at all say that they most certainly ran from an avalanche, or at least though they where in danger of being hit by it if they stayed in the tent. Several of them got caught by the avalanche and was buried beneath the snow (the missing tongue probably having been bitten of during either during the violent avalanche, falling while running down the mountain etc.), while the others froze to death. But still, the article should be kept, and the paranormal stuff should be mentioned as well, though not as facts, just as with many other wikipedia articles about 'mysteries'. 213.89.222.42 (talk) 23:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References all appear to be circular to me as well, I suspect viral marketing. -Mask? 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. No secondary sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary school cricket competition in one corner of England. No independent sources cited, and no assertion of notability outside the schools themselves, hence fails WP:ORG. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply too marginal a writer. No significant third-party coverage (sources are IMDb, his agent and his old buddy). Pichpich (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete faithless (speak) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS and WP:V. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Insta-nuke per A7. -Jéské (v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 17:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, no notability asserted, probably a hoax. Turns out he does exist. — Edokter • Talk • 09:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This skateboarder's notability appears to be questionable. Weak delete unless notability is better demonstrated. --Nlu (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comic book bad guy, appeared in a few issues and was killed off. No sources except the comic books themselves. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asgardian (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment "primary sources do not count as reliable sources" is erroneous. For over 40 years the comics have been the primary sources. When Fantastic Four #48 (vol. 1) was published, it featured the first appearances of the Silver Surfer and Galactus. This is fact. This was the primary source - there was no other. To this day, the comic is used as the main source, a point acknowledged on both characters' article pages.
Also, hundreds of characters have never had a comic of their own. Again, this is not grounds for deletion. Do the master villains like Magneto; Ultron and Dormammu have their articles deleted because they never had a series?
Finally, there is the comment - "personal belief that the character is important". This is also a fallacy. If a character has appeared in over 3 decades of comics printed by a publisher, then they themselves deem the character important, and it is this notion that others now support.
Asgardian (talk) 10:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gman124 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was a member of one of the first (and longest-lived) supervllain teams in Marvel (if not comics in general), was one of the first killed by the Scourge of the Underworld (Marvel's attempt to 'clean house'). He may not be as notable an Iron Man foe as Justin Hammer or Obadiah Stane/Iron Monger or the Mandarin, but that doesn't mean he's not notable at all. --Dr Archeville (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "Admin-man" example, there is some truth in that not every character who graced the pages of a comic is notable. I don't see all the "one-off" foes that Iron Man dealt with in what were usually fill-in issues as being significant. The Melter, however, is. Why? Because with over 10 appearances - which is very notable in comic terms - the character is an integral part of the Iron Man mythos and larger Marvel universe. Again, if Marvel repeatedly insert the character into over 3 decades of comics, then they themselves deem the character important. Asgardian (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset indent) Then the Wikipedia rules need to be altered. By that logic, there would be almost no comic-related articles. Asgardian (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be less notable characters with articles and this character's appearences seem notable enough to keep the article even if he's currently fallen into disusePalendrom (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced since sept 2006. The only reference provided is movie characters. No evidence that this phenomenon actually exists. Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete faithless (speak) 09:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxy, spammy, vandalized page on non-notable MC, no sources. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), All applicable opinions are keep, 'too detailed' is far from a reason to delete. The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
A chunk of text quite rightly chopped out of the Central Plains Water article. Far too detailed for an encyclopedia. This should be on an external website. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"
"
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, vanity, COI, shall I go on? Doctors publish, that's part of what they do, that does not make this one notable. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. This was previously tagged CSD but doesn't qualify as A7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete faithless (speak) 09:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. No sources and no notable films. Delete Undeath (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under G3 criteria. As a note, I did find a few Google sources, but they all were mirrors to the same text. Most likely a hoax. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 07:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May not be real, no sources, want more opinions cohesion 06:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. (non admin close) Undeath (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Official websites are not inherently notable. Nothing important about this website. --- RockMFR 06:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zero notability. No secondary sources in the article mention the website, as far as I can see. There is nothing particularly important, notable, or unique about this website. --- RockMFR 06:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a big ad. One main page and some patents do not assert notability. This one is iffy in my mind, so I brought it to AfD. Prod was removed by article's creator. See the talk page for more details given by other editors. My vote, since there is no notability assertations, is a Delete Undeath (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This seems to be just promoting someone's rather questionable patent on an pre-existing scientific/engineering field -Model reference control. This field is well established in control theory, with books on the subject - however I am unaware of any common text referencing the associated company or patents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User A1 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local community/worship center. Actually, it look like it's just a house. Jfire (talk) 05:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete G1 by user:King of Hearts. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More than likely a hoax article. See [35]. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete WP:CSD#A7. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. No information, no albums that I can find, no deals with records, nothing that could make them notable. -WarthogDemon 04:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion. Please take any merge discussion to the talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character, hardly warrents her own article, the character only appears in one book and the film adaption. The closest I think that this should be to being kept is being merged with List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Not mentioned in any secondary sources for anything it has done. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this organization is well-known it should have a WP article. I had never heard of it before and the article so far only has a few passing references to events that it sponsored, nothing about the group itself, from the news media or other secondary sources. Most of the other information in the article is taken from the group's own website. Due to commitments I am taking another break, hopefully long, from Project Scientology. (p.s. I agree that the fact that the CoS engages in political lobbying should be mentioned on WP, but the name of the group they founded to do this does not seem so notable as to have its own article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a list of Scientology related organizations it could be merged into? Redddogg (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct Non-notable ex-radio station. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my searching I could find no outstanding reason why this faculty member should have an article. [36] There is no mention of him/converage in reliable outside, indepedent secondary sources. Second of all, all Ph.Ds and most masters associate and assistant professors will have publications. This doesn't mean they are notable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 03:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Belrose, New South Wales--JForget 01:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable playing field with 11 unique Google hits, all relating to nonnotable events of which this was the site. Article's creator persistently removes tags without addressing sourcing or notability problems. It exists, but the article fails WP:V with respect to the information it contains. Deor (talk) 03:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gamecruft. A Ragnarok Online guild that doesn't seem to need an encyclopedia article. You could make the argument that the article asserts notability, so it's not speediable, but no support for the claim is given. No secondary sources are cited. No evidence that this is of interest outside the gameworld. Contested prod. eaolson (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ORG - one Google hit for "WCTR Charter TV3" (WP itself), nine hits for "Charter TV3", none of which contain significant coverage. Article was also created by someone who appears to be affiliated with the organization in question. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Young music producer, whose production discography would be evidence of notability. Unfortunately the only references in the article are his myspace page and a blog interview. Extensive gsearch reveals no reliable sources to back these assertions. Recommend Delete unless reliable sources can be found. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep as AFD started by banned user. Will (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable comic strip, not referenced at all CholgatalK! 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 04:55, March 2, 2008
Indiscriminate list; none of these people have anything in common besides having dreadlocks. There are quite a few red links as well, and this list certainly borders on WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (hoax). Esteffect (talk) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No such player exists on team roster ... an apparent hoax. Blueboy96 00:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's ... nothing to say about this movie. Essentially admits it's crystallish--no directors, no writers, no actors. Not even sure this movie is real either--a grand total of 3 ghits and 1 Yahoo hit. Blueboy96 00:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an actual film, it's probably still shooting though, only a trailer has been released so far, i'm sure more information will be updated soon. an IMDB page is proccessing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeygray1 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Both sides make very good arguments. These articles are usually deleted (and I have supported such deletions in the past). However, there certainly are exceptions; O.J. Mayo comes immediately to mind (apologies to non-Americans). This seems to be one of those times, as there unquestionably has been significant coverage of this young keeper in the media. And, most importantly, there are twice as many keep arguments here than delete arguments. faithless (speak) 10:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD: Non-notable youth footballer, fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and WP:ATHLETE because he has never played at professional level, (youth caps do not confer notability) English peasant 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced. Fails to follow WP:MUSIC. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus and lack of article improvement after last Afd discussion. Melodia, I noticed you said you have this in user subspace. That's perfectly acceptable. (userfication is often the outcome of debates for sourcing issues). If/when you feel the article in your userspace would meet the sourcing standards, let me know, we can have it put back in mainspace and have another discussion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Melodia, I need to rephrase this, userfication preserves article history, which is required. I'll be on your talkpage to clarify in a minute...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final update. Article has been userfied to User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music with history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several months on, no references (which was the requirement when the first AFD was closed). While I've tried to remove OR as much as I can, some still remain, especially Canon in D Will (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Huddersfield/Halifax and I haven't heard of the kid... Google hasn't either. Will (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]