The result was speedily deleted per CSD G7 (non-admin closure). nneonneo talk 17:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
incorrect formatting Tibutoo (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge with Laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Megapen (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G1, G2, G3, A1, A7 and so on. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character from a program which has no proof of existing. Article was deleted under WP:PROD but user recreated. Lunar Jesters (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator - non-admin closure. nneonneo talk 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
Textdump from [2] or similar site. While this isn't a copyvio (since such cases are in the public domain), this is "just another legal case" since it doesn't assert the notability of the case. nneonneo talk 23:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Notability has not been established.Fabrictramp (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO Tabercil (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article does not reference any secondary reliable sources to assert notability. Article describes a corporation without referring to secondary sources (external links are copies of information from corp's website). Article was tagged for notability concerns in September 2007, tag was recently removed along with prod without any major change in content.Gazimoff WriteRead 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Irish Times. the wub "?!" 22:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable newspaper column (it may be a highly informative column, but that's a difft matter to notability). The only references are a collection of links to the column's archive. --WP:NOT a linkfarm BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game character with no reliable, independent sources as references. Graevemoore (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I belive this article should be deleted, as it does not meet Wikipedia's Nobility standards (WP:N). The article contains neither much real-world information (WP:WAF), nor actual references to verify its claims (WP:Cite WP:OR. WP:A). ShadowJester07 ►Talk 22:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable. Megapen (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Played with a few notable musicians but that doesn't make him notable himself. I've found no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn User:Hit bull, win steak and User:MyGrassIsBlue have found sufficient sources that I feel criterion of WP:MUSIC is now met. His very common name did make searching for sources very difficult, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noted guitarist to appear at Shoppe] article from the Kansas City Star, Davis picks brewery for workshop, performance in Daily News Leader of Staunton, Virginia; [http://infoweb.newsbank.com.remote.scccld.lib.mo.us:8080/iw-search/we/InfoWeb?p_product=AWNB&p_theme=aggregated5&p_action=doc&p_docid=1124A63E79157EB0&p_docnum=25&p_queryname=3 Flatpicking guitarist to host workshop at Route 60 Music] in The Herald Dispatch of Huntington, WV - June 15, 2006
MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD G3, blatant vandalism and hoax. --Kinu t/c 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. See here. asenine say what? 22:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep I have withdrawn this nomination, as the sources presented show that this duo clearly meets criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC (substantial third-party coverage). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical duo. No sources seem to exist. No major label albums, chart singles, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
, Southern Illinoisan article: "The Gordons to play at Liberty Theater" [6] , St. Louis Post Dispatch article from 1997: "HOMEFRONT THIS WEEK: COUNTRY AND BLUEGRASS THE SOUND OF MOUNTAIN SOUL" [7] , Southern Illinoisan article mentioning The Gordons opening for Charlie Daniels, [8] --MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax -- zero references, no hits on anything. Original author has not come forward with any references, nor can I find any (despite this person's apparent notability). nneonneo talk 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Classical clarinetist of dubious notability. Involved in some recordings, but most if not all references are trivial. Article was created by subject's wife. --Finngall talk 21:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:V and WP:N. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one liner about a surname; nothing to indicate that this surname, among the gajillions of them, is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6 months on from release, article fails to establish any mainstream WP:notability, or even comment, bar obviously book merchant websites and the fortean times review, which is less than flattering and implies the same lack of notability. Considering the recent inquest I would have thought there would been more interest in such a titled book, but it appears not. Hence, not worthy of an article, whose stub sized presence here judging by Google does more for the authors than for the wikipedia reader reaching it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete primary editor's request. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:BIO, in that there is no indication that this person has been the subject of multiple independant biographical articles. Delete with the possibility of reinstatement if independant verification can be provided. TheRingess (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tirunelveli --John (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't meet notability and verifiability as described in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:VER. I have made an attempt to verify notability and have determined the following. 1) Aside from a few short quotations, the subject of the article has not been covered by the media or other sources. 2) The subject is the CEO of a company that has also recieved limited press coverage (I found a few tangential references in newspapers but no pieces directly covering the company) and I can find no evidence that Anderson Economic Group is one of the largest business economics consulting groups as is claimed. 3)I find no evidence that the books and academic papers listed are of major import in the field. In addition, the prize awarded for best paper and a series of positions with the state government don't seem to rise to the level of encyclopedic notability. A prod tag based on notability was earlier removed. Wik-e-wik (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 09:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a major league player, but essentially a trainer - fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Art Comics Daily. While notability is not clear for Bebe Williams, it's a valid search term. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Article is made by the subject, so obvious WP:COI and WP:AUTO issues. It was tagged last month for "dubious notability". CyberGhostface (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be a notable software/shell account. Ghits limited to downloads, forums and other non RS. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 20:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --John (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band with no references, only likn is to website. I would guess this is some form of self-promotion. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 20:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 09:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few claims here and there, but he seems to fall a bit short of WP:MUSIC. Only sources are no good. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that the article is worth keeping. I removed the production credits in order to re-structure them now, since they were really cluttering up the article. However, I believe the article is notable not only for his work with several notable bands, but also for his hand in forming Black Lodge Studios. Rwiggum (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable place: it's just a road/housing estate (see map) Cordless Larry (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:BAND. PeterSymonds (talk) 06:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:BAND... you choose. Endless Dan 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Known only -- to the extext that he is -- for the screenplay of an obscure indie movie last year. Very few Google hits, no reliable sources about the subject. RGTraynor 20:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, nonsense. BencherliteTalk 20:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
might constitute a hoax Megapen (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7, "uploads to YouTube" is not an assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Low notability Megapen (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Inter. Ty 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
don't see how he is notable – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
Seems to be an arbitrary list of mobile Internet service providers, prices, and other non-encyclopedic content. ZimZalaBim talk 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear example of a spoof article on a non-existent entity Damac (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. the wub "?!" 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to pass the threshold of notability - references are primarily to the website itself. External sources include:
Per WP:WEB, there is a lack of non-trivial discussion in reliable sources to indicate the site has received extensive attention. No awards, no redistribution in newspapers. Page has received trivial attention, not discussion, in some borderline sources. WLU (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by Cobaltbluetony. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician article. Grasping at notability through association with other artists. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Libs (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable movie (?), filming not yet started - fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Pokemon hack. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tower; the festival it's used in is red linked so I doubt its notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References added. Please read the Tin Hau Festival and Fa Pau is shown in this page should one not know about the heritage over hundreds of years. — HenryLi (Talk) 23:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate the notability of this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article appears to be a duplicate of Nada Sahib, without adding any significant information. --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Seraphim♥Whipp 00:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this is a secondary school or is otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect as non notable, main article is too short to merge content without giving undue weight to this minor element. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn sometime guest on a former tv show, so nn we don't know where or when she was born - red flags of non-notability in a modern bio - or any other salient biographical facts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by WP:CSD#G3 by User:Orangemike. WilliamH (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOAX violation. This alleged cartoon series by a non-notable animator (who is himself up for AfD) has only 56 unique Google hits, desperately scanty for a cartoon series supposedly on NBC for six seasons from 1995-2001. All those hits are of this and related timeline Wikipedia articles and their mirrors; none are from reliable sources. IMDB has no entry on this alleged series, and neither does the NBC website. Another film from this fellow is also up on AfD. It's somewhat sad that this article's been up for over two years without previous verification. RGTraynor 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by WBOSITG. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of a previously prodded article. Album and single articles fell to AfDs (see article's talk page). No sources provided (save artist's blog (removed)), no coverage in reliable sources found. Fails WP:MUSIC based on info in the article. Might fit speedy criteria, but recreation seems likely (see previous COI issues discussed in article's talk page). Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE ~~ N (t/c) 23:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this re-make of a game for a different platform (a "port" I think in computer lingo) is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. Both Keep and Delete voters seemed to have worthy arguments. Surely better sources could be found; one senses that more has been written about this guy. Merging is an editorial decision, and is still possible. The article that the voters have decided to keep is not very impressive. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mneseus is one of 10 twins in Plato's Critias - all we can say about him is his name and position in the 'family', basically just a definition Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn with consensus to keep, and a trout for the nom (just kidding). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, an actor who does not appear to meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete --JForget 01:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Pure and utter bollocks. The original author obviously made this up, as there are absolutely no relevant Google hits about this subject, aside from this article. Should've been speedied as nonsense, in retrospect, but it looked too convincing at first. (Note: Companion article Vinala is up for speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (CSD A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. nneonneo talk 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to be unverifiable. There are no sources available via Google that are independent of the Wikipedia bio of this individual. MHGW (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. tomasz. 15:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge or keep. Ok, I realize that this is ambiguous, so before anyone runs off to DRV, let me explicitly say that there is absolutely no consensus here to delete anything at all. There is also no consensus here (and AfD isn't the right place for it anyway) as to whether these should be merged to different targets, left as stand alone articles, or what have you. Merge discussions are already underway for the majority of these, if not all. Let them play out. LGRdC also mentioned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derelict (Alien) below, that perhaps should/could be resurrected to be included in the merge discussions. Let me know on my talk if the history is needed for a future merge. Final note: As closing admin, I'm not merging anything, or redirecting anything. I've no interest or knowledge of this particular subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing my listings of Alien-related stubs, here we have a group of articles that are all spin-offs of Aliens (film), each devoted to a different prop, character, organization, or concept from the film. The whole lot seem to fail WP:N, as well as V/OR/RS as they rely entirely on only a couple of primary sources (the film itself and the Colonial Marines Techincal Manual for the most part) and almost entirely lack any secondary source material. High likelihood that there are no significant third-party sources that could be used to support individual articles about these things. The relevant information about characters, casting, props, design, etc. are all already discussed in Alien (film), and everything else present in these articles amounts to fan synthesis, trivial detail, in-universe explanations, and dubious claims to notability, none of which seem possible to expand within the guidelines of WP:FICT. Almost none of these subjects have appeared in any media other than the film itself and tie-in video games, and certainly don't seem to have been the subjects of any significant discussion in third-party sources (at least nothing that's not already well-explained in the film article and List of characters in the Alien series). Again, deletion would be better than redirection as these are spin-off articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place and pretty much only link to other articles via Template:Alien, so dead links will be an easy fix. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me issue an apology for jumping the gun a bit on removing the links from the other articles. This was something I'd been working on for some time, ever since I marked the articles for merger back in March. Discussion on those merger proposals didn't start taking place until May (see here). There were only a few contributors and the general conculsion seemed to be that most of these articles already had all their encyclopedic content presented in Aliens (film), hence there was nothing left to merge. That's why I brought them to AfD in the first place and removed the merge tags shortly after. Since the opinions here seemed heavily weighted in favor of deletion or merger, I started going through the "what links here" pages to see what their status was. As I stated above, I found that in 90% of the cases the articles we'd likely be merging or redirecting to were already linked in the same sentence or section (ie. "The M41A pulse rifle used in Aliens...") So common sense told me it would be redundant to have a redirect to an article that's already linked by it's proper title in the same sentence. That's why I started trimming the links, though I admit I probably went overboard in away that could affect people's opinions in this AfD. For that I apologize. Secondly, though I'm still of the opinion that none of these topics have enough secondary source material available to warrant stand-alone articles, I agree with Ingolfson that we could remove the Sulaco article from the list since he has put a lot of effort into saving it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and that article can always be dealt with on its own sometime in the future if need be. As for the rest, I'm still of the opinion that they can and probably should be deleted, as they don't contain any verifiable, sourced information that's not already presented either in Aliens (film) or List of characters in the Alien series. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to be specific about the relevant info from each article already being present in the film & list articles. Here's a breakdown:
So there we go. From those 8 articles I could only find a few sentences' worth of stuff that might be merged into Aliens (film). The rest is all unreferenced claims, plot summary, in-universe info, and filler. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. the wub "?!" 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Puff piece about the blogger/archaeologist nominate for deletion - skeptic17
The result was Non-Admin Closure - evidence shows that nomination was made in error. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The capitalization is wrong, and the references are not formatted correctly. The content is, however, legit, so once deleted I will submit a request to have it built by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Rjgarment (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been speedily deleted twice to my knowledge. The phraseology seems to be selling the article. I'd personally think that a radical rewrite if the modelling language itself is notable rather than a delete, but as this has been deleted as advertising before I though a discussion rather than another speedy delete would be preferable. Drivenapart (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the author of this article and I agree that I'm a beginner in Wikipedia rules: the first version of my article was not neutral, as if I have nothing to do with e3value, it is just a subject of study for one of my courses. I've rewrited this article and now I really think it is neutral and clear, in the Wikipedia syntax. E3value is becoming more and more important in business modeling, it is not part of any companies, and the tool to develop it is free to use. I really think it has a place in Wikipedia. Please explain why you consider not before deleting it. I understand the miss of references and I'll add external references right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo489 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey people: I've tried to change a bit the synthax so that it suits the wikipedia way of thinking. Probably it is not enough but tell me what I should change next. I'll also want to add a graphical example, but I'm still not allowed to upload a picture. For the word salad, I've no schizophrenia, I'm just french :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipo489 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that I am getting ready to feed myself to the lions with this one, but here is another by a group of admitted meatpuppets that fails WP:BIO. The gist of the article is that her parents were killed in the Armenian Genocide when she was a baby, she was rescued by Americans when she was a baby, lived virtually her entire life in the US, and wrote a book that she self-published about her family's suffering. Oh, and apparently she knows Gary Hayes and Bryan Pisano. While this woman is probably a fascinating person to talk to and did have a pretty tragic beginning, that in and of itself doesn't equal notability. There simply aren't any reliable secondary sources in the article, I couldn't find any either...she isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. SmashvilleBONK! 15:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability is not derived only from the fact that she is one of the last Armenian genocide survivors living in the United States; it comes from the fact that she has published her book called Triumph From Tragedy and travels around New York State retelling her story. When these three things, though maybe not significant enough individually to pass WP: Bio, combine, they do indeed pass it, in my opinion. Dr.orfannkyl (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No reliable sources to prove he passes WP:MUSIC. I've looked too, but can find little. Black Kite 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highly promotional and non-neutral article on a non-notable musician. I could find no reliable third party sources pertaining to him, and this article has been uncategorized and tagged for refs since 2007 at least. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one liner about a holy site with no references or context sufficient to know what is going on at the site or why it's holy and to whom other than the guy who created it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one-liner about an upcoming film, WP:FILM, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable org. No reliable sources found, and the orgs they're associated with are all red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should article survive AFD perhaps a hat note directing those looking for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) - should be added. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party references for this race, which apparently doesn't attract the a-list of long distance runners. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More then 57000 Google [30] hits. Seems notable --DimaG (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable outside of the Transformers article. asenine say what? 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the template didn't substitute correctly for me, but here's my reasoning: - This topic does not appear to be notable; while it has four external links, two are the album and artists' own pages, none are to coverage of the album. - As the artist himself (or at least, someone sharing the artist's name, who has never no unrelated edits) is editing the page, it appears to be a vanity page and therefore unencyclopedic. - Possibly original research. Stationary (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --jonny-mt 06:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can this possibly be encyclopedic? Google invites speakers to talk at Google headquarters, places videos of talks on their websites and suddenly we have an encyclopedia article on the subject. Almost every company invites people to give talks; I think we would be hard-pressed to say simply because a company has invited talks that makes these invited talks noteworthy or notable.
I believe that this particular article is not worthy of separation from the main Google article and therefore I suggest either a merge back to that article or an outright deletion on the grounds that the only sources that mention these talks are obviously taken from either people attempting to promote themselves for having given the talk or are a blatant advertisement for Google's TechTalks. The two "independent" sources on this do not establish notability for these talks outside of the Google-empire. We should not be making spin-offs for every marginal project that Google creates. If these talks become famous like the Ford Lectures then we should have an article. Until then, this should not be an article on Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason this is not closed? I don't want to do it myself, but the chance of even rough consensus to delete appears minimal, the arguments for deletion equally minimal, and the normal time has expired. Can we move on?
In fact ISTM that we have rough consensus to keep. It would be most helpful to close it as consensus to keep, to minimise the risk that it will be quickly renominated. But even a close as no consensus would be progress IMO. Andrewa (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to pass WP:Music, at least not by the info given in the article. The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: I think you should keep this page, I can attest to the fact that Byrdie did indeed record for the Prestige Label, as well as Polydor and Polygram. I am her youngest daughter and have the albums in question in my possession. I opt that you keep this article. --Dharbee (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Dharbee
The result was Keep (and stub to remove unnecessary fluff). Marking for cleanup... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable institute. Media coverage is focussed on the guru of the institue and this media coverage is for child molestation. These sources may be reliable, but the focus is on Swami Prakashanand Saraswati's alleged child abuse. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Unsourced, does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Recreation might be possible with a tighly sourced article that demonstrates notability, if desired. WilyD 19:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V, WP:BIO, possible WP:AUTO. Subject's claim to fame is writing a startup weekly lifestyle column for the NHL.com website, but there are only 56 unique Google hits for her, and no reliable sources about her, as WP:V requires. The article itself is unsourced and was written by a SPA with no edits beyond this article. RGTraynor 14:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE ~~ N (t/c) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Heil isn't a notable business person. Webprofessor (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of some dubious facts, bad references and outright rubbish, couple with a how-to guide and hundreds of external links, mostly spam, with a title that could refer to any one of a dozen different things. I don't think there is anything worth salvaging. akaDruid (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24.69.160.235 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2008(UTC)Joel
The result was delete... WP:SNOW, since this is not an article. Would likely be a CSD G11 as self-promotion or CSD G12 as a copyright violation anyway. --Kinu t/c 22:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopaedia article but a short work of fiction. It is non-notable and presumed unpublished elsewhere. The author's other contribs all constituted vandalism; creation of this article seems to have been a reaction to a final warning on their Talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphim♥Whipp 23:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (soundtrack) Black Kite 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing special in a song sung by Bob SquarePants. Should be mergeed to The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie (soundtrack) Damiens.rf 12:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Instant-runoff voting. There is some useful and relevant information to that article here, but this is essentially a POV fork which could be condensed and included in that article. I have redirected; others may merge as they see fit. Black Kite 10:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created for POV purposes. There are very few references (10), and all are weak. Of the few references given one is "electowiki", a wiki (which are not considered credible sources per Wikipedia policy). Another reference is written by the "Center for Range Voting" a POV group. And another source is "Behind the ballot box: A citizen's guide to voting systems" by Amy, Douglas J. This book has only been cited 3 times, and has no positive reviews, is not an important work, and not considered influential in the field of political science or international relations. This is also a fork article that draws attention by claiming it's about "controversies". Even the title is misleading, as is the content and purpose of the article. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified all editors about this AfD, who either voted in the previous AfD, or edited the subject article or its Talk page, who had not been previously notified or commented, and who are not blocked or vanished. That's a total of 12 editors, some of whom may have long been inactive.--Abd (talk) 22:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More or less a duplicate of list of lifestyles, which was deleted last month. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maelare for more on this. Apparently a whole bunch of Polynesian articles were created at once from a dubious website. Most were deleted, but a few are still around. I can't find any sources for this one that aren't mirrors, and it (like Maelare) may not actually exist. FCSundae ∨☃ (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No evidence that this one passes WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 20:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined to speedy this page because there was an assertion of notability (i.e. that the band has released 4 albums). However I don't think they are on major labels and as such it probably doesn't meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unregistered user attempted to nominate the article for deletion with the reason of: "This album did not release. Compare [42]". Procedural nomination. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedily deleted as first-person promotional and preaching. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First person advert for non-notable organisation. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedily deleted as copyright violation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just facts and figures already included (if relevant) in the Bulgaria article, he also claims ownership of the article, which is against guidelines. asenine say what? 08:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply a copy of information available elsewhere, fails WP:NOTE. --TheTallOne 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pigman☿ 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of third person sources to prove notability WP:BIO,WP:RS, Dwanyewest (talk) 21:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no third person sources to prove this individual's notablity we can't have information on blind faith or give the benefit of the doubt without evidence surely? Dwanyewest (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously AfDed for four times. But this article is complete original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Delete Original Research is just the beginning. It is also non-verifiable and "factually" incorrect as a number of the words are used widely by Americans both inside and exterior to the United States. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources independent of the developers are given in the article or by a Google search, thereby meaning it fails WP:N. Una LagunaTalk 06:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - but will userfy. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unsourced - PROD was removed by incivil IP —TreasuryTag—t—c 06:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
game not yet officially announced -Majestic- (talk) 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of churches in Belgium. fails WP:Notdirectory and WP:nottravel as either a directory of churches in Belgium, or a travel guide to churches in Belgium. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
original research, not notable, unreliable sources, advertorial according to 41.240.146.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who didn't complete the AfD process. I'm neutral at this point. Eastmain (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reasons for deletion:
But it doesnt link to 100free, it links to KewlStuff, so I cant understand the problem of using 100free as a mirror site. It provides better trans atlantic communications? Will the problem go away if I give the product to Apache, will a domain name make everyone happy? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)
As I said, its a new technology, thats what makes it notable. Does this mean that only large companies can invent things, would you put the next Sun standard that is just released through a notibility test, if not why not? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)
It is clearly an Application Server, how does that fit under the definition of POJO? And it seems POJO is been set up for a deleteion process as well, so why there? (previous unsigned comment added by User:Johnny Kewl)
Trying to fake notability?
Save POJO Application Server Definition by trying to incite mailing list members to link to his site as references... Dubious. (previous unsigned comment added by User:41.240.146.236)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was Delete all, including those added late, per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but declined on technical grounds (didn't fit neatly enough). I believe that this article and the one that follows are ripe for deletion, as they don't even try to establish notability, and they border on plain old advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason as stated above:
- Electronz (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The brother of a famous person is not famous. Speedy tag improperly removed, but here we are. Corvus cornixtalk 04:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchuminWeb (talk • contribs)
Likely hoax, says Google. Fails on WP:NPOV and WP:V too. asenine say what? 03:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about this one. There are no references and I'm not sure if anyone cares about yet another Bible translation. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable training program by non-notable creator; no reliable sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. Fram (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Folks;
I created the page about Glenn after doing an interview for a magazine, yet to be published. I felt I wrote it in a neutral voice without a slant. I thought this was following the Wiki-policy.
If we need to eliminate the external links to remove any hint of COI, let's consider this course before we delete the entire article. While Glenn may not be widely notable now, I believe he will be in time. I can ask him to provide add'l sources for confirmation.
He has been previously published in various magazines and his book will be out for wider distribution within a month - libraries by the end of the summer. There will be people wondering who he is - I thought that was what Wiki was all about...
How do we edit this article to remove any hints of COI and keep it part of the Wiki-community?
Everett
UPDATE: I removed any reference to Geez Press or current contracts to eliminate or seriously reduce) the COI. Please reconsider. Thanks.
EG —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettGee (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No real viable content to merge. Wizardman 02:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a fictional webcast on a television show. The sketches from the show were pulled out and made into a website. Still fails WP:N and WP:FICT LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I'm unconvinced that this is non-notable. A quick Google also found an article on africanfilm.com which included a clip from an LA Times Review ([54]), and another which also contains a clip from City Limits ([55]). I'm pretty sure a viable stub can be cobbled together from these sources. Black Kite 20:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable television movie. No awards won, not even listed at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Appears to have been released on video at some point, but never on DVD. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At best: non-notable original research. I can't find any media references to the term,[56] nor anything in the first few pages of a google search.[57] Perhaps the first line could be moved to Wiktionary, but the rest is a bunch of OR-cruft. -- Mark Chovain 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable religous leader. Part of non notable religious institute. Sources quetionable at best. Sources to establish notability are lacking entirely. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 03:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems not as notable as has been mentioned in the article, it is not a reason for deletion but he only gets 570 google hits, just to let you know. Fails on WP:V and WP:BIO, mainly. asenine say what? 03:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable public health campaign, aimed at a relatively small region. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Opinion shifted during the AFD as sources were identified. The key to the article being encyclopedic is whether sufficient reliable sources were available so that it can be expanded to be substantially more than a dictionary definition and by the end of the process the consensus was that it could. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of someone posting dictionary definitions in Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance (information retrieval) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article is subsumed by other entries--primarily by the Information_retrieval entry. Moreover, it is poorly written and has POV issues. If there is anything worth salvaging, I suggest it be merged into the Information_retrieval entry.
Dtunkelang (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(contested prod) Doing a google search, I can't find anything that is notable. He appears to be the CEO of an online company, but it has no reliable third party sources to show how he is notable. Soxred93 (u t) 02:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hit publish too soon, pls give me a few minutes to show how he is notable :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superhealix (talk • contribs) 02:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 02:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no cites, no hits for this coach. Frank | talk 02:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to J-Kwon (to keep the history), WP:CRYSTAL and no sources, can be un-redirected if the album appears or deleted if it doesn't. Black Kite 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be a real album and without any kind of track listing; sourcing used in article is from MySpace posting with album art, and G-hits lead mostly to unrelated videos and ringtone sites involving J-Kwon. Album title also unlikely to be this. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Sex and the City: The Movie. Duplicate articles, redirects are cheap. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate of this article. Save-Me-Oprah(talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fictional television show that appears on a television show. Points for recursion, but fails WP:Fict WP:Note and WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Not being a speaker of Turkish, I wasn't aware that Ana Sayfa was Turkish for "main page". I should note also that a.) "Main Page" is a redirect to the Ana Sayfa on the Turkish Wikipedia, and b.) there are other non-English redirects (such as Página principal) to the English main page, so I see no harm in keeping this. Furthermore, it's been restored as a redirect, and redirects don't belong in AfD anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally a redirect to the main page, until an IP over wrote it. Either way, it's not a necessary page -- no reason to leave as a redirect or as a duplicate. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom for User:Fallenfromthesky, apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Although the discussion below indicates that the topic is notable, there also appears to be a consensus that the article as it stands cannot be used to write about this topic due to fundamental issues with a neutral point of view and original research (both of which supersede any questions of notability) that prevent it from growing beyond its current state.
I'm going to take the liberty of starting a new stub on which others should feel free to expand. If anyone would like the deleted text to use as a reference, please leave a message on my talk page. --jonny-mt 05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A novel approach to the nature and function of language". Does that mean original research? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the person who posted Distributed Language, and I did that because I believe it a very important concept. Of course, I'm an iexperienced wiki-user, and from the discussion I see that the article ought to be rewritten. I'd like to leave a stub, but don't know how to do it. Could someone advise on that, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashakr (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Sashakr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hi! As a linguist, I find the distributed approach to be a very important development in linguistics. Surely, there are as always the usual pros and cons, but the number of papers, articles, conferences (and even a special issue of Language Sciences, Sep. 2007) clearly indicate that this is an important topic in linguistics, and therefore there is no doubt that this article should not be deleted. Whether it is written in a Wiki format or not, well, perhaps it isn't. On the other hand, there are some valuable information in the present version that might make it easier for another contributor to re-write the article. So perhaps it could be left as it is now for a while, giving other contributors some time to re-write it thouroughly?I've used Wikipedia for a couple of years now, but I haven't engaged in writing or discussing articles before, so I'm not sure about the usual procedures etc. in this situation. SunWork (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)— SunWork (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unwanted fork of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon. Made up. As far as Wikipedia versions are concerned: self-referential and already covered by Wikipedia:Six degrees of Wikipedia and four similar articles. See also numerous previous AfDs listed here. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I created the article is because the Wikipedians on the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon discussion page said that there should be a separate page for Six Degree variations. As for the "made up" claim, variations on games appear to be a fairly standard Wikipedia practice. For example, the card game, Spades has many variations listed including; game variations, bidding variations, gameplay variations, scoring variations, trump variations, and total number of players variations. Somebody must have made up all of those variations - but that doesn't make them any less valid in the context of the game. Unfortunately, I did not find any of the other variation pages until it was mentioned here. When I searched for Six Degrees of Wikipedia it redirected me to the Kevin Bacon page. I'm all for consolidating the pages as they make sense. What is the best way to do that? --Bnbalestri (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. The album article at this point could easily be merged into the parent band article, but that's not for AfD to decide. Marking both as keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, no RS ukexpat (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources cited to verify notability. This concern has not been addressed for more than a year, as indicated on the article's talk page. PROD removed by article's creator. JGHowes talk - 14:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Unremarkable. A search on "Gaffer's Row" with the author's name gets three hits, two of which are Wikipedia. Roleplayer (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus --JForget 23:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adhesives company in India has a few hits in business publications. Adhesives companies aren't rare; in this Thomas Register listing, there are 5,194 adhesives suppliers in the US and Canada. There must be many more in the rest of the world. Anyway, the sourcing for this article doesn't show notability in my opinion, so I would like to know the Wikipedia community's opinion. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person may be notable, but I'm not entirely convinced. In addition to that concern, this orphaned WP:BLP article has been lacking reliable third party sources since its inception, requesting them at least as far back as September 2007. Contested prod. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion per CSD A7. Jesse Viviano (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy removed, maintenance tags removed, a look at the history is baffling! only 2 Ghits Wikimedia and this page, so totally non-notable. Richhoncho (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]