The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Fictional atheists===[reply]
A little while ago, the category "Fictional characters by religion" as well as it's subcategories were deleted. The reasoning for this was that it's unlikely that people will look for characters based on what religion they adhere to. You can review the the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student government political party at Northwest Missouri State University. Article functions as mere historical record of a student club at a university. Makes no assertion of notability. (According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education school clubs are not notable.) Contains no third party reliable sources, and I was unable to find any, except from NWSU publications [1] and myspace profiles [2].Googlenews search comes up empty [3].
Stubbed information already moved to main article here.--RedShiftPA (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is very similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulldog Party
The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student government political party at Truman State University. Article functions as mere historical record of a student club at a university. Makes no assertion of notability. (According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education school clubs are not notable.) Contains no third party reliable sources - all 5 sources are from TSU student newspaper and Googlenews search comes up empty [4]. Stubbed information already moved to main article here.
RedShiftPA (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is very similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearcat Voice
The result was Delete --JForget 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Core article information is bogus. Jwinius (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I have redirected to Shortland Street; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional character, first appearing on television recently. No evidence of third party coverage. Prod removed by anon without comment. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was not listed on the article itself between 22:07, 13 March 2008 and 12:29, 14 March 2008. Fixed now. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time nominating a page for deletion so I hope I'm doing this right. Anyway, the article in question doesn't assert notability and their "website" is a MySpace page. Also, the article doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. On the other side Contribs|@ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should be speedy deleted. Non-notable news case, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and egregious violation of WP:BLP. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Plaxall (apparantly Plaxall is his client[7]). Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G12. google produces very little, asside from lawsuits. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability seems to rest on the apparent claim that Plaxall invented thermoforming. Do we have a source like Wiley's Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, rather than a local newspaper? --Boson (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not notable Bardcom (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If inventing thrmoforming isnt notable then what is? It seems as though wikipedia has lost its ability to grow. Not allowing articles in unless they are already published somewhere else just makes it a copycat. --70.107.249.106 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)— 70.107.249.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. There is insufficient evidence of notability. There is a claim of notability based on the subject being the inventor of thermoforming but this does not seem to be widely known, let alone accepted, and there is also evidence that the subject of the article did not invent thermoforming. --Boson (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, insufficient evidence of notability. The article claim that the subject was central to start of thermoforming appears to be contradicted by other sources. As the article's [[WP:N|notability] hinges on that central claim, I support deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The article states that it is commonly thought to hav been invented in modern form in the 1930's. The decade Plaxall was founded. No other "inventor" is offered.--70.107.249.106 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)— 70.107.249.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield «T•C» 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are over 300 missions of the LDS Church. Main article is at Mission (LDS Church), but no other mission has its own article. Previous mission-specific articles have been deleted/merged here and here. I see nothing about this particular mission that would suggest this one is notable in any way that would justify a separate article. Article contains no references except a link to a mission "alumni" site for former missionaries. There are actually other references mentioned in the article and a link to another webpage, but from what I can see they seem to deal with the more general topic (and possible article) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia than to this particular mission. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination from DRV here. Article was deleted in a previous AfD and recreated multiple times. Additional references have come to light in the deletion review, but there was no consensus regarding if these met WP:PORNBIO or other notability criteria (and they have not yet been added to the article). As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Power Rangers. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this list -- even when complete -- isn't really suitable for Wikipedia. IMDb is much better suited to it. The main people - EPs, directors, et al - can be noted on the show's main article or episode lists, etc. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the fact it's incomplete, I'm not convinced this is a wise idea for an article-fork. It's a bit of an indiscriminate collection of information; and we already have Fulham F.C. season 2007-08. This seems like going in to too much detail for what Wikipedia's scope.
For a similar AfD a while ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't describe its own supposed topic, it just leaves a few lines of commentary, bit that are already covered elsewhere. No real definition of the term 'Neo-Stalinism' is presented. Soman (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect/Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and failing WP:N. Public elementary schools are generally held to be inherently non-notable, and a small, private school should also require something impressive to warrant an article. Article is unsourced, and doesn't appear to have any reliable sources that are independent of the organization for material. Lots of Ghits, but they don't seem to be for this specific school, as Immaculate Conception is a common name for parochial schools. Finally, school no longer exists as an independent entity according to the article. Horrorshowj (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The delete !votes - besides being well outnumbered - have also not established that the topic itself is non-notable. If it needs more references, if it needs some POV fixing, if it needs any sort of clean-up, by all means, hit the "edit this page" button. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion is per the article being in serious violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and having no citations/ sources/ references. The article is horrible and (here's my own POV) I think any metal fan would be ashamed of it. It is so completely wrong. Delete! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I should also point out that having a fashion article about a subculture (one that is still continuing) is unencyclopedic in nature. Everyone has a different perspective of what constitutes "fashion" and it differs from person to person. Therefore it cannot be discussed in an encylopedic way. Everyone's POV is different and will come into effect in this article. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IMPORTANT - I'm not sure why people aren't getting this, but let me reiterate. Having a fashion article about a subculture (one that is still continuing) is unencyclopedic in nature. Everyone has a different perspective of what constitutes "fashion" and it differs from person to person. Therefore it cannot be discussed in an encylopedic way. Everyone's POV is different and will come into effect in this article. Secondly, there are no fashion articles about such things as rock, emo, pop, country, jazz, soul, funk, blues, etc and they all have subcultures as well. Should we make a fashion article on all those genres? NO, because it makes no sense, much like this article! Any fashion article about an ongoing subculture perpetuates POV and is non-encyclopedic. Lastly, if this article is kept, as it look like it will be (unbelievably, even though no one's cited pollicies), then I move to rename this article Heavy metal attire as a few users mentioned above. At least we would get rid of the blasphemous "fashion" word. And yes, I always talk with a certain amount of POV on most talk pages, but that doesn't mean that my main points are wrong, damnit. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The influence of modern military fashion on heavy metal fashion is significant with metalheads been known to wear modern military clothing like field jackets and articles of camouflage and olive drab green uniforms like shirts and/or trousers to wear alongside their black T-shirts and black combat boots. This influence could be due to the impact of the Vietnam War on popular culture in the United States during the 1970s and the 80's, with images of American Vietnam veterans wearing their old combat uniforms in civilian life, as well as the fresh memories of the conflict were still in the minds of many Americans.
wear modern military clothing like field jackets and articles of camouflage and olive drab green uniforms like shirts and/or trousers to wear alongside their black T-shirts and black combat boots.
As I was saying in my introduction this is one view which can be aquited to America, and my second point this is the 80's. Not when the founders of the fashion were in the 70's.
Furthermore, this article goes away from the 'heavy metal' era and into the modern 'power metal' era in the 90's with blind guardian being primed example in 'other influences'. In Hairstyles they get mixed up between Glam Era and Gothic era amongst others.
Either the article has to change it's name to 'metalhead wear through the ages' or it should be deleted.
--METALFREAK04 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one-liner about a noble German family, no indication that this family is notable, whether this is some recognized peerage, a bunch of landowners, or a series of mayors, or what? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only primary sourcing. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article digs its own grave. No need to get out the crystal ball. EJF (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]Little is known about this album at the moment
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion, proposal expired without comments, deleted by me. Author contacted me for undeletion (twice, on account of my sloppiness), so I undeleted it. I am nominating it for deletion purely out of procedure. I have no arguments either for or against its deletion. JIP | Talk 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Monster Radio RX 93.1. I'm going to redirect the article, and if anyone feels content should be merged, feel free to do so. The people who are wanting to keep make no argument in defence of notability, backed up with reliable sources that the nominator made clear. I decided against an outright delete because many of the people who commented to outright delete held no prejudice to a merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about one radio program in Manila, doesn't appear to assert any notability, or at the very least a reason why it can't be merged into Monster Radio RX 93.1? Author has already claimed he or she will "report it" if it is speedied again (whatever that means). SGGH speak! 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is unsourced and unreferenced. I cannot find any sources anywhere. Notability not identified Dreamspy (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really dig up much, 18 unique ghits (google search, google scholar gives zero, google groups gives zero, well, I think that's the idea), all are wiki mirrors of one sort or another. I know ghits aren't normally a black-and-white test, but in this case, I think it works fine. And in all honesty, it sounds like a memorial a friend wrote. Yngvarr (c) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable duo in any way. Their only single didn't chart (shame, since it was a good song), and their only album was independently released; they seem to utterly fail WP:MUSIC. Page was apparently deleted before, given the history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[[dark.]][[arias.]] (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inadequately sourced biography on one of the two people who conducted a review of the remote viewing program, after which it was terminated. There were two of them, and it will come as no surprise whatsoever to those who watch the walled garden of articles surrounding RV that only one has a biography, the one who came out as saying that RV exists (which the scientific mainstream say it doesn't). So: this biography, with its tiny few sources, appears to me to exist solely to boost, as with several other deleted biographies of similar lack of sourcing, the remote viewing nonsense. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as spam --Stephen 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per talk page of article, seems to be a proposal for field of study for someone's school; just not workable as an article - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
highly POV; needs serious reworking to identify notability and neutral facts; uncertain if it's worth it - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BIO. Doesn't appear to meet the basic criteria of notability, and being the presenter of television programmes (especially in the cases of several of these programmes where there are multiple presenters) does not automatically confer notability in itself. Consequently doesn't appear to meet the basic criteria or additional criteria of notability per WP:BIO Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I chose not to merge since there was nothing to merge (one sentence), chose not to redirect since I doubt this will actually be typed in ever. Wizardman 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable Students' Union, that doesn't link to any external third-party sources to confirm notability. TalkIslander 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If the article creator wants the information userfied to try and get it to establish notability, then I can do that. Wizardman 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biased, no third-party sources to establish notability or verify facts. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pearllysun (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)dear administrator : i really respect your concern that wikipedia must be a place free from spam and add based pages , and since my article has been added to those needed editing / deletion i have completely revised the article with respect to your concern and wikipedia policy , i moreover have removed infos that might look like a promotion or something of some sort of an add , me being a medico never wish to use wikipedia for any wrong intention or any , so i wish to hear from you if my article needs more editing or revision to bring it to encyclopedia standard , i would welcome any type of assistance / mail from you since the same would encourage me and assist me in creating great articles in future and would add boost to my wish to become an administrator in future .[reply]
regards pearllysunPearllysun (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep doesn't seem to be an add support or a sock puppets work , but an inexperienced contributers work .moreover the inexperienced member has shown full support and willingness to if at all edition is needed try negotiating directly first . Heavy-handed approach is not warranted. Бриллиантжемчуг (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one-liner that the Sikkimese people are those who inhabit the Indian state of Sikkim, not overly encyclopedic, but we can quickly geto 50 more articles by writing identical ones for each US state, and probably run to the next millionth article by doing this with each county's subdivision... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. We don't mess around with copyvios folks. You speedy delete first and then bring to AFD if a real article resurfaces and it still doesn't pass muster. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a fine musician, but too marginal to allow for the construction of a significant article. Current content is a copyvio of http://www.c-alanpublications.com/composers/papadimitriou-dimitris.html but deleting it through AfD rather than copyvio speedy deletion would prevent recreation. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of real-world notability and a lack of reliable third party sources about the subject. Wikipedia is not a game guide or a fan site for in-universe repetition. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research about fictional magazine. The first line of the article seems to indicate that there was at some point a magazine with that name, in which case this should be replaced by some stub on the subject. Otherwise, I don't really see why we would leave a redirect to Ugly Betty since this is an unlikely search term. Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Father of Barbara Pierce, not sufficiently independently notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) --Michael WhiteT·C 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. GRBerry 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. This was previously tagged CSD but doesn't qualify as A7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Advertising, Wikipedia is not a directory and according to Wikipedia:Corp there are very little sources. Kingpomba (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography/vani-spam for NN person running for Congress in a district in California. If he's elected he'll probably be notable but he hasn't been elected yet. Has done nothing yet that satisfies WP:BIO. A Google search reveals no hits for his name except a couple blog entries and his own website. Wikipedia is not a voter's informational pamphlet. Prod and Prod-2 were removed by an IP addy. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a definition of a word (a Dutch one that is not notable in English). It has also been transliterated here OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is for a compleatly none notable character, using a dubious name! Doktor Wilhelm 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Philippine television series that is about to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a Philippine TV series that is about to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a Philippine TV series that is yet to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be deleted also. Jennyandalizapurok4|Talk 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about an upcoming Philippine movie, that is yet to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.Tommie —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. This is a typical nn band. The references do not assert notability and are not from reliable sources. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to find notability here, but this is nn. Kingturtle (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the current editors do not want a Wikipedia entry Shannonez (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge/redirect to Dell XPS. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial product. This article is up for merge, but the target article is already a wreck because of original research problems. This article has no references, and has been flagged for merger (for about three months) and for references (for about 10 months) with no substantive improvement. Since unreferenced material must be aggressively removed, the best solution seems to be to delete the article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Note that this article was previously nominated for deletion. I had expected the aft templates to pick this up, but they're quite broken when used on articles with strokes in their names. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete this version of the article, because of hoax content. Addhoc (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline notability (WP:N); requires immediate referencing or removal, per WP:BLP. Some references without in-line citations are shown, but it's unclear how they are related ("Mein Kampf"?!) Marasmusine (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: as an unreferenced BLP. I had tagged it for speedy under A7, after being unsure if it really qualified for G10. Certainly BLP violation. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ancestor of the Bush family whose only real claim to notability is being director of the St. Louis National Bank. Is that enough? I am neutral. --Michael WhiteT·C 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, The St. Louis National Bank isn't notable, and there are thousands of banks and therefore thousands of bank directors. I also don't think every distant member of the Bush family deserves an article simply for being a Bush. KnightLago (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article describes a type of auction, invented by a Swedish real estate broker, see promotional material http://www.swedeauction.se (for example see here). The only active use of this type of auction appears to be via swedeauction.se. No reference shows that this type of auction is in active use in Sweden. No reference is given to some material in English. The only credible reference is to a Swedish handbook, where this method is described as a experimental method worth trying; Zacharias, Claude (2001). Some references are given to newspaper articles - probably created as a result of promotional efforts by the inventor.
The similar page Swedeauction has already been deleted, see [24] Ulner (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason given for notability. Citation of WP:NPT in favour however no criteria in it passed. Suggest deletion under WP:N and WP:NOT BigHairRef | Talk 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite notable, and not cited. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Creator(s) apparently sock-puppets based on November 18 edit history (not confirmed). Apparent advertising or vanity article. Foggy Morning (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete if the information is already covered there is no merge to do. Spartaz Humbug! 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Squarely goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Info is covered already in Malaysia Airlines destinations and Kuching International Airport articles. Russavia (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns a non-notable poet (all refs found are self published on lulu.com); the actual article is unreferenced, most likely original research, and either it's a hoax or the quotations are a copyright violation. PROD removed by the author without explanation. Ros0709 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonicflame (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW non-admin close - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article raises notability concerns due to the irrelevant subject matter and is blatant self promotion, vanity and hawking of wares. There are violations of NPOV and COI since Scott Draves wrote the article about himself. Linking to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com is gross abuse of Wikipedia.--Editor5435 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- isabelwh
-kenny s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.172.80 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks like it just restates info available on a personal website. I can't really see why this person is notable. Also, it looks like every paragraph starts with "he claims", without listing any secondary sources. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Karjala is a whisleblower who reported fraud inside the mega-ministry Focus on the Family. You can verify Karjala's employment by contacting the human resources department at Focus. You can verify that he was not fired. By contacting Focus you can also verify that the organization has doubts about the Tom Papania audio testimony it once sold. This Wikepedia article is relaying disinformation and takes Karjala out of context and doesn't accurately portray the real reporting and ministry of Karjala, nor does it cite the sources for information Karjala quotes on his web pages. Examine the Tom Papania Wikepedia article to find the source of the disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthteller0717 (talk • contribs)
Someone has slandered Karjala by claiming he was fired from Focus on the Family. Why is that unverified claim not yet removed? Reporting fraud within a major "evangelical" organization is not notable? This from the Wikepedia folks who give space to trivial celebrity figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.187.232 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Writing that someone was fired for behavioral issues is slander when it is not true. I guess truth is irrelevant to Wikepedia. Just delete the article. It was created by an enemy of Brian Karjala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.187.232 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The study of "interactions of human and visual environment". To judge by the references, only Vasiliy Filin uses this term. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All information is already included in the main Rugrats article. So my vote is: Delete TheProf | Talk 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was moved to userspace by author, and blanked. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir,
since it looks like several people think that the article at issue should not be in this Wikipedia, I removed the page myself. I moved it in my personal user page and I removed also the automatic redirection from the original article so that it cannot be indexed or searched anymore in Wikipedia.en. I assume this is absolutely correct according to Wikipedia rules.
I do not want to debate about the existence of that page in Wikipedia nor to criticize the opinion of people here, but I was really disappointed by the fact that someone said that I was not a writer or that I never published the books I wrote. I do not think it is correct.
So I took this decision. Thank you everybody. Regards --Dejudicibus (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really time to delete ALL the post about M. de judicibus (in french, english and italian). please do it to ensure the full credibility to our favorite encyclopedia 90.33.77.151 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Version vom 18:58, 30. Nov. 2007 (Bearbeiten) (rückgängig) Logograph (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (hat „Dario de Judicibus“ nach „Benutzer:Fragola70/DdJ“ verschoben: zur Überarbeitung) http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Fragola70/Dario_de_Judicibus&diff=39547921&oldid=39547917 --82.120.58.56 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear sir,
I received just now a request to reply to a request of deletion in this page. I read what you wrote and it is absolutely false. Here is the list of my publications:
BOOKS Dario de Judicibus: La Lama Nera, Gruppo Editoriale Armenia, 2006, ISBN 88-344-1882-4 Dario de Judicibus: Le 10 Regole per Vivere Sereni, Gruppo Editoriale Armenia, 2005, ISBN 88-344-1803-4 Dario de Judicibus: Le 10 Regole dei Buoni Genitori, Gruppo Editoriale Armenia, 2003, ISBN 88-344-1505-1 Dario de Judicibus: TCP/IP in Pillole 2a Edizione, Tecniche Nuove, 2002, ISBN 88-481-1441-5 Dario de Judicibus: XML in 6 ore, Tecniche Nuove, 2000, ISBN 88-481-1098-3 Dario de Judicibus: TCP/IP in pillole, Tecniche Nuove, 1999, ISBN 88-481-0798-2 ARTICLES ON MAGAZINES Dario de Judicibus: 9 articoli, Tecniche Nuove, in: Internet.Pro, 2005-2006, ISSN 1824-8403 Dario de Judicibus: 136 articoli, Tecniche Nuove, in: Internet News, 1996-2003, ISSN 1123-6027 Dario de Judicibus: 5 articoli, Tecniche Nuove, in: e-business News, 2000-2002, ISSN 1590-0355 Dario de Judicibus: 45 articoli, MC, in: MC Microcomputer, 1988-1992, ISSN 1123-2714 OTHER ARTICLES (NEWSPAPER AND TECHNICAL) Dario de Judicibus, Paolo Gerosa: Il valore della gestione elettronica dei documenti, FileNET, in: iged.it, 2007, ISSN 1720-6618 Dario de Judicibus: La riforma dell'affido, Avvenire S.p.A., in: Avvenire, 2003 Dario de Judicibus: Knowledge Extended Framework, IBM Technical Bulletin, in: FR8-2002-0119, 2003 Dario de Judicibus: Il ruolo della tecnologia nella gestione della risorsa più preziosa: il tempo, Edizioni Ritman, in: Logistica Management, 2003, ISSN 1120-3587 Dario de Judicibus: Quando le comunità si fondono: il caso Nextra, IBM, in: OL3, 2002 Dario de Judicibus: La gestione della conoscenza, FileNET, in: iged.it, 2002, ISSN 1720-6618 Dario de Judicibus: Deep-flat Connectors (DFCs), IBM Technical Bulletin, in: GB8-2000-0150, 2001 Dario de Judicibus: Vivilmare 2000, IschiaPrint S.r.l., in: Il Golfo, 2000 Dario de Judicibus: Intellectual Capital Management, IBM, in: Read.me Magazine, 1998 Dario de Judicibus: Reuse Overview, Reuse Technology Support Center, in: Z325-0700-01, 1994 Dario de Judicibus, Susan Henshaw: Expanding a field to fill in more information or clarify its content, IBM Technical Bulletin, in: RA8-92-0194, 1993 Dario de Judicibus: Re-engineering the Software Development Process, IBM Reuse Technology Support Center paper, 1993 Dario de Judicibus: Stacked shells, a multiple workplace shell environment, IBM Technical Bulletin, in: IT8-93-0006, 1993 Dario de Judicibus: Reuse: A Cultural Change, School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, in: International Workshop on Systematic Reuse, 1993 Dario de Judicibus: Hypercode: an hypertext approach to programming, IBM, in: SOFT-HYCD-04, 1993 Dario de Judicibus: Lo sviluppo industriale del software., IBM Foundation, in: I seminari organizzati, 1989 Dario de Judicibus: Object-Oriented Cookbook: The organization of OO in IBM, IBM, in: OOPS-9005-01, 1990 R. Nernst, Dario de Judicibus, et al.: OBSERVATION OF THREE P STATES IN THE RADIATIVE DECAY OF UPSILON (2S) American Physics Society, in: Phys.Rev.Lett.54:2195,1985, 1985, ISSN SLAC-PUB-3571 D.P. Barber, Dario de Judicibus, et al.: A PRECISION MEASUREMENT OF THE UPSILON-PRIME MESON MASS, American Physics Society, in: Phys.Lett.135B:498,1984, 1983, ISSN DESY 83-067
As you can see I wrote about 200 articles on monthly magazines, so I am a journalist. I also published five books (not self-publishing!) with very well known publishers in Italy (not minor ones) and I am going to publish a sixth one and writing a seventh one (for one of the major publishers in Italy). So I am a writer. I work for IBM since 1986 and I have a reputation of expert in knowledge management and social networking.
Now, I do not care if you decide to keep me in Wikipedia or not. It is up to wikipedians to decide. I am a wikipedian just to contribute for what I know (articles on Italy and on KM, Web 2.0, semantic web, and so forth) and because I believe in Free Internet. But for NO REASON I will accept that someone may say that I am an usurpator. I hope I was very clear. --Dejudicibus (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person is simply an usurpator : he is neither a journalist (cf. hte previous posts), nor a real author (absolutely not published, no books, no ibsn,...), just a self proclaimed so called web expert ! a blogger beyon millions of other public bloggers !
Again, I do not want to debate about the fact that my name should be or not in Wikipedia. This is something that has to be decided by Wikipedians. It is not suitable that I speak to defend that page. This is not the way Wikipedia works. Everybody should judge independently. The only criteria is consistency. For example, if someone decides that you must have at least 4 published paper books to be here, that criterion should apply to everybody. But I suppose that good criteria cannot be simply based only on number of publications. As you correctly said, every expert writes many articles in technical journal. However the magazines where I wrote were not technical journals but magazines like BYTE or PC Professional. 200 articles on monthly magazines are a lot of years of collaboration with national-wide publications. I undestand, not so famous as BYTE, but they are Italian one only. Sorry. Not my fault. About ISBN I already replied to you in the previous section. I am honestly worried by what you said, because it is a signal of what's happening. Not your fault of course. You rely on Internet and site like Amazon. Amazon and other reliable sites do not index most of Italian books, you do not find the book, so the book does not exist. So, simply because they are not interested to Italian market establish if a book exists or not. I understand how difficult is to let English people how discouraging is that. Thank's God Italian Wikipedia ha a lot of contributes, but what will happen if we slow down to maintain it? What will happen if Italian wikipedians will stop adding contributes. Today it is that which tell you if your culture exists or not. The day an Italian Wikipedia will disappear, the only Italian people you'll find in the English one will be Dante or Pavarotti, probably. Still today, if you ask an America person the name of an Italian modern singer, they will mention Modugno!!! No mention of De André, De Gregori, Dalla, Guccini, Britti, Povia, and many others. If we disappear from search engines, we will disappear from history. Funny :( --Dejudicibus (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contested prod. Google search shows only 7 ghits outside wikipedia [26]. No significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Wikipedia guidelines on notability, the following persons are generally notable: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." So, given the importance of the UK, I would argue that all members of the UK House of Commons, at least within the 20th and 21st centuries, are inherently notable. Ghits are not always a useful guide. PatGallacher (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per WP:BIO (service in national elected body). Google Book source. --Michael WhiteT·C 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nom per the above arguments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed under the (mistaken) assumption that an album by a notable artist is automatically notable. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability problem? - Face 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: some sources, two minutes googling in chilean media:
http://www.universia.cl/portada/actualidad/noticia_actualidad.jsp?noticia=127020
http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2008/01/28/LUCSTDI02LU2801.htm
http://www.wikipediars.com/wiki/Plan_anti_poke-eva
http://enbocadetodos.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/pokemones/
Now, from my "personal experience"... This is not just "another teen trend". believe me, chilean teens love fashion trends, and every year theres is a new one (sk8ers, raperos, hardcores, capoeiristas, lanas, etc), but i had never seen a teen trend that 1.- is so clearly the result of media pushed stereotyping, 2.- has incited such a deep and heated moral debate about the sexual habits of our youth 3.- has sparked concerted campaigns to take violent action *purely* on the basis of style and fashion reassons, as opposed to political reassons, like the traditional beatings of punks and neonazis. I can translate the above if necessary, and if i find the time. Gorgonzola (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Non-notable on its own, and the information is already available at Grayson Space Navy; no-one is going to be typing in this article name as a search. What I have done, though, is to alter the High Admiral dab page to direct the reader to the above. Black Kite 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional rank whose definition is apparent from name, unsourced, non-notable plot summary. No independent notability (WP:N), does not follow WP:WAF. Written from a in universe perspective. (Was a prod, but has previously been deleted via prod.) Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 12:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — no reliable sources produced to demonstrate notability of the subject. Indeed, many arguments were made that sources cannot be found for conlangs — however, this was disputed by the demonstration that sources do exist for some, notable ones. As such, the argument that guidelines should be ignored is not compelling. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This constructed language claims to be quite well known in the conlang community but I have failed to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. All Ghits [35] are personal web pages, wikis and the like. Although this article survived a previous AfD, it did not address this issue. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ballery about a non-notable horror movie. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has already been speedy deleted twice as blatant spam. The latest incarnation is a lot less overtly promotional, but I still think that there are significant WP:CORP issues here that need to be addressed. 149 Ghits which is pretty low for an IT Consulting firm, especially when most of thise hits seem to just be various job vacancy advertisments placed by the company.
The most recent speedy tag placed on the article was removed without comment by User:Abhose, but to their credit they have at least trimmed most of the blatant advertising out of it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us know the point where you think we are violating the wikipedia criteria so that it will be easy for us to edit the content as required- abhose
please highlight the content, you think is not coming in wikipedia's criteria, thanks... abhose
InfoCepts is doing notably good in the field of Datawarehousing and BI field. One thing people should know about infocepts is that while working at remote location at Nagpur in Maharashtra(India) where not much significant companies are presents still this organization is doing good and providing the boost to the local environment to highlight this region on the global map.We are considering the revison, Thanks.... abhose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhose (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Sсοττ5834talk 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have revised the content to make it mere informative. Please dont consider it's spam. As infocepts has become a favourite destination of younge talent pool in this region which is the good remark for its work in this region. Though infoepts doesnt highlightd much in informative sources, still we think you should consider the visionary efforts of the InfoCepts....Thanks Abhose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhose (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your consideration…. InfoCepts works on the Business Intelligence (BI) Technology which is a niche field. By the Technology profile, we are the only company of Central India which works in this field. More importantly InfoCepts is a consulting and education partner of MicroStrategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroStrategy) which is a respected name and a global leader in Business Intelligence. (http://www.microstrategy.com/Partners/Directory/detail.asp?id=161).
Also InfoCepts is the only Authorized Training centre of MicroStrategy in India. InfoCepts is also proud to be a part of the Micro Strategy’s major international events every year (please refer http://www.microstrategy.com/Events/MicroStrategyWorld2008/index.asp?CID=2604b0 ).
We agree that InfoCepts currently does not have as many secondary sources as other organizations. This is primarily because the company is less than 4 years old and works on a niche field which everyone does not know about. If you still think that not having a lot of secondary sources is an issue, we would be happy to withdraw the listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhose (talk • contribs) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by User:Haemo per WP:CSD#G6. Non-admin procedural close. --jonny-mt 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence exists that such a company exists. No orders exist with any of the aircraft manufacturers mentioned. It is a hoax pure and simple; an airline founded in 2008, but expecting its first aircraft in June 2007? Russavia (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state federation of Young Democrats of America--RedShiftPA (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Young Democrats of North Carolina was the founding chapter of the Young Democrats of America, they are an historic chapter with 80 years of history with notable state leaders such at Governor Jim Hunt and U.S. Senator Terry Sanford as past Young Democrats of North Carolina presidents. This historic value of this organization alone is enough of a reason not to delete it. --Kalliope O'Donnell (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. There was no need for all this relisting; it is plain that there is no settled opinion on what to do with the article. Note also that the injunction is now lifted with the closure of the case in question. -Splash - tk 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about episodes of a soap opera that is slow moving and airs daily. The page is already very out of date and I don't think it's fesable or nessecery to have an article about every single episode of a daily sopera opera. Perhaps an article for a few notable episodes yes, but not every single episode that has aired. As far as I know, no other soaps do that. IvanKnight69 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this to be a hoax. I've never heard of this holiday, the text never explains what it's about, the references don't say anything about this holiday and even more important: the first of June is Primero de Junio in Spanish, not Uno de Juno Mixcoatl (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-American War about a year ago, this article hasn't improved much since. Original research (via synthesis), crystal balling, should be merged, etc etc. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 10:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article this is a major series shown on multiple networks. But there are no third-party references to substantiate this and in fact it appears the reality is that a single pilot has been made, there is no sign of any commissioning of a series, and there is no major third-party coverage of the show. Currently this article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL and is demonstrably misleading. It was speedily deleted on its initial creation and was recreated by an author knowing this was the case. Ros0709 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:^demon. Deli nk (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable merchant account provider. Google Search has a few hits, ([47]), but they all appear to be copies of press releases and the like issued by the company. No third-party comment or coverage that would indicate notability, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:ORG. While being quoted by many news outlets, the IMEU has not been the subject of coverage in any reliable, independent secondary source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was listed for speedy as "advertisement consisting of game guide material only" or words to that effect. After declining the speedy I re-read the article and it does have severe problems with notability - no independent reliable sources are cited. The references section and even the talk page freely admit that since the game is in beta, coverage from external sources is lacking and the info comes from playing the game itself - in other words, original research. Strong delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G1 Patent nonsense by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not your personal webspace - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Can find no mention of this person anywhere. See hoax tag previously applied. Talk page admits that the article was written by "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article". The Talking Sock talk contribs 06:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable actor. Highly probable that the show itself is a hoax.seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. While I honestly thought this would be fairly straight-forward based on my past experience, the discussion below presents undeniable consensus in favor of keeping the articles and brings up a number of good points that I cannot refute. As such, I am withdrawing the nomination. --jonny-mt 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Large bundled nomination of this and similar articles created by the same editor. Despite the overall high quality of each article, Wikipedia is not a news source.
Although I named this discussion after the most recent article, I am including the following articles in the nomination as well:
Hopefully I haven't missed any. --jonny-mt 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all three. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable pageant instance. Perhaps there might be sufficient grounds for notability for a Miss Cosmos article (although I honestly have no idea) but I think that individual year articles on an obscure pageant (compared to the much more notable pageants such as Miss Universe and Miss World) is wrong.
I just want to add that obviously finding news sources for 1951 on the internet is pretty much an exercise in futility, but I did check the Google News archive for "miss cosmos 1951" and there were no hits.PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nom withdrawn per notability clarification. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:FC Knyazha Schaslyve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Apparently not eligible for speedy but appears to fail guidelines as it's not the top league, it's 2nd division. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn, see below[reply]
The result was merge. I have redirected to Wheeling, West Virginia; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant and verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is a specific police department notable? Doesn't look like it in this case, wails WP:N and WP:RS. Wizardman 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Orlady (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Prod removed with a note from the creator and while I understand it was a requested article, I don't see any encyclopedic notability for a diaper bag and its contents. The contents are pure OR and vary from one bag to another. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Looks much better now. Wizardman 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-procedural nom, as it's been tagged as lacking notability/context since April. Also fails WP:V and WP:RS as it stands. Wizardman 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned stub on a scale whose existence I can't verify. I haven't encountered it in any book I've seen on music theory or scales. No relevant ghits (particularly damning since guitar learning sites will frequently list nearly every scale known to man, from the common to the vanishingly obscure). And, on the face of it, it makes no sense: the article claims that the scale is a six-note scale that skips two steps of the major scale...which is a seven-note scale. It also says that it's a combination of pentatonic and blues scale, but there are several pentatonic scales. Article creator (and the only editor of the article who wasn't simply adding stub notices and the like) is Coldscale (talk · contribs). I have a sneaking suspicion that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day applies here. — Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete no context. Redirect to Impossible Creatures could be made. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable video game character. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sole sentence of article: "No Strings Attached Tour was 'N Sync's 2000 world tour in support of the album No Strings Attached." The article then lists the setlist and where they went. No sources are provided. Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save one of the biggest tours, sources were added. Had its own TV special, along with 2 DVd releases to go along with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.45.169 (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable voice actress. Searching yields IMBD, flimsy/empty TV.com etc..etc.. [57] Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax, no such place, 3 ghits directly associated with article Grahame (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The horribly obscenely long title aside, this film doesn't meet notability standards. It mentions a review in the New York Times, but that is the only reliable review I am able to find on Google (where, by the way, it gets less than 400 hits, and you can be sure they're all relevant with that many search terms). In short: fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:RS.
Included in nomination:
Sequel to this film, it suffers from the same problems - except the Times didn't review that one. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really notable, references are to minor stories of no significance. No evidence to back up some claims, and even if they were backed up doesn't make him notable anyway. I had to do a minor edit and it still seems like some of the page is actually a kind of personal attack page. Canterbury Tail talk 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod and prod2. Nothing in this article but instructions on how to make a fundraising successful. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.
Also nominating:
The result was No consensus (default to keep). Keilana|Parlez ici 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone posted a tag on Daniel Inouye's article that this should be merged into it. There's really nothing to merge because the article is almost nonexistent. Unless there's other information to add to this article to make it substantial, I recommend deletion. Enigma msg! 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, but the sources found should be included. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, per WP:MUSIC ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep, non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a dictionary definition; it is all about the word dude - its usage, pronunciation and origin. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. BencherliteTalk 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per bad-faith nomination. Barrier, mate (talk · contribs) has been flooding the AfD with various degrading comments, and masking as other editors.. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unimportant. No one cares about it, espeiclaly not by now.Barrier, mate (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Keilana|Parlez ici 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the many things Wikipedia is not is a plot summary. This article, on the other hand, is one, and nothing more. I clicked on it expecting to find a real-world history of the development of the comic strip For Better or For Worse, but instead it's a synopsis of the major plot elements of the strip from 1979 to the present. Please delete as unencyclopedic. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without encyclopedic relevance. Camachista 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
'KEEP' Now more important then ever. Seriously, it was the most watched film of that year. --HungryJacks (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]