The result was Delete. per WP:WEB, probably an A7 speedy. Black Kite 23:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable fanforum. AecisBrievenbus 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fails WP:V amongst many other problems, as the comments show. Black Kite 23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of game mods, does not appear to be encyclopedic, lacks sources, and is of very limited interest. See WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands people are aware of at least 1 of the mods, and most play them. I believe they are notable. And the list of half-life mods article doesn't cite any sources either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulalex19 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close and redirect to Units in the City. This page listed nothing else than the song's chart positions, which are already in Shawty's discography, so I feel this is a non-controversial merge. And personally, I will trout the next person who takes a merge request to AfD. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Song article unlikely to ever to grow beyond stub. Should be merged to Shawty Lo. Damiens.rf 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:BIO, clearly non-notable. Black Kite 23:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think that founding a fairly new church (July 2005) and giving a weekly sermon on the Christian Television Network doesn't quite satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Non-notable, almost strays into G11 territory. Black Kite 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No establishment whatsoever of notability Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. WP:RECENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc. Black Kite 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good example of WP:RECENTISM. A dolphin "married" a woman, this article is about the dolphin. This was nothing more than a tabloid story and something found in the "Weird News" section. I do not see how this event is signifanct enough to be in a encyclopedia. The article about the woman was already deleted [2]. The last AFD for the article was around when this story was in news. Anyways the dolphin gets an article but not the woman? That makes no sense. Neither are notable. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article is a pseudo-historical document. This is source material that wouldn't belong in a Wikipedia article, if just for the fact that it's made up and original research. What remains is a barely notable art project. It is striking that the only google hit for "Bagot Beast" is this Wikipedia article. AecisBrievenbus 23:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Half-Life 2: Episode Two. No valid reasons to keep given, but in the absence of a suitable merge page, let it go to the main article so that the history is preserved in the remote chance that an encyclopedic article could be written. Black Kite 23:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional location in a game has only 144 Google hits, remarkably few. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Additional sources have been found during the AfD and there was no consensus for deletion. However, there are still significant unsourced claims and inline cites are needed to avoid a further challenge, at least to some of the content. TerriersFan (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability, nearly pure original research and promotion; most text lifted from company's own promotional website —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person appears to be a fabrication, a hoax, or at the least an inflated reputation/personal bio. There has only ever been one article published by them, which was reprinted in several less than noteworthy publications. There is no information anywhere available on the person themself, nor any evidence that they have ever written anything else, on any subject. Appears to just be one single-purpose editor maintaining and pushing for keeping the article. ← George [talk] 22:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete Gabriel Al-Amin's secion. The fact that you guys remove Gabriel Al Amin section 3 times a day proves that you guys are biased towards one side. I am sure if someone, whom we will call "Person A," actually invented a fabricated character, whom we will call "Person B", and "Person A" would say that "Person B" is a famous columnist who published an article that Israel failed miserably in the Lebanon War, and that Israel is an evil occupier oppressor, I am sure you guys would not care about getting proof of "Person B's" existence as much as you guys would care about proof of the existence of Al Amin! But when someone like Al Amin, who does not share a 100% bashing Israel perspective (as much as you guys are), then you guys go bazerk and look for any excuse to have him taken down and hush him up. Even if "Person B" would not have even ever been published in even one newspaper you guys would probably let his section stay. But Al Amin has been published in 6 different newspapers. I found this too: http://arabdesk.co.il/ArticleView.aspx?id=99 I am not even Jewish, I am actually a Greek Orthodox, but i believe the section of Al Amin needs to be heard, since like i said again there are a lot of people in Lebanon that would agree with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholausz (talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UsedID:Nicholausz has a similar IP address to LebanonWire.com, the source of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.200.163 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Appears to meet various parts of WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bambinn (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC Black Kite 23:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two articles, one about a rapper and the other about his single album, but there is no indication that the artist meets Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. The article about the artist was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor but this was declined on the basis that the article about the album also existed. As both articles were created by the same editor at the same time I fail to see the logic in that argument and have brought this to this wider audience instead. Ros0709 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related album article also nominated is:
The result was delete; fails WP:BIO and WP:V covered by WP:RS. Tyranny of dissolving liberties being all well and good, Wikipedia isn't the place. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the recent nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Schnoebelen and its delete outcome, I find it relevant to consider the Tsarion article again as I believe these too figures pretty much are comparable when it comes to meeting Wikipedia's WP:BIO notability criteria. To be specific I find that the one-sided sourcing from web sites connected with Tsarion or sources that would otherwise not qualify as reliable sources makes this article a candidate for this nomination. __meco (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is deleted you have succumbed to the tyranny of dissolving Liberties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.135.123 (talk) 04:15, May 19, 2008 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus This sucker needs to be closed and no consensus is the way the way to go, as unsatisfactory as that is. Hey! we live in an imperfect world get used to it. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a nonnotable game character with no independent coverage. It has been tagged for notability for about six months, so this nomination should not come as a surprise. Graevemoore (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:V. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, no sources to verify the album. The E-card is apparently a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 21:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but a dictionary definition. A merge to Physical attractiveness has been proposed, but there's no discussion area on Talk:Physical attractiveness and there's nothing to merge anyway. Powers T 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources were identified during the AFD that has produced a firm consensus amongst editors that the book meets notability requirements. (Non-admin close.) Smile a While (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable, unsourced Ziggy Sawdust 20:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a hoax. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally at Andrew Dwyer, which I deleted (CSD G3/G11/A7) and salted because it appeared to be astroturfing, spamming, and/or hoaxing by a group of individuals with no other edits to the encyclopedia. It reappeared here not too long thereafter. Ultimately, I am convinced that the article is not a hoax, per se, and a discussion of its merits is in order. It looks like merely a WP:COI article about an individual who does not appear notable from reliable sources. Most, if not all, of the supposed references provided are not legitimate sources, in that they are profiles, broken links, passing mentions, etc. I also find it highly suspicious that this article in all its incarnations has been edited only by accounts with no other contributions to the encyclopedia as well (viz. the deleted history of the original article). The key issue here is the notability, though, and I don't believe it can be satisfactorily fleshed out and sourced, and recommend its deletion. NOTE: The listing of DVS Group (or DVS Facilities, I'm not sure what the company actually calls itself, since it differs) on the Council of Foreign Relations website as a corporate partner may make the company notable to some extent (even though no other sources can verify this, or even the existence of the company), but does not automatically transfer notability to its key individuals. --Kinu t/c 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. No references in article; all I've found so far on the web is their MySpace page. Not eligible for speedy, as the article contains an assertion of notability. Powers T 20:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Golbez (G3: Vandalism). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this article as a possible hoax a few days ago and I am almost completely sure now that it is a hoax. Captain panda 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really like Ryan Shupe & The RubberBand (Dream Big was soooo under-rated), but there's very little info on this album anywhere. No third party reviews or other coverage, and the album was apparently self-released. (At least their other albums all have reviews on All Music Guide, otherwise I might ask to delete those too.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what works as verifiable third party references. You've already shot down my Last Man Standing page (that was cited with about 5 sources, and I can back it up with more cites now). Why is the artist's own page with discography not considered legit? Would a retailer selling the CD be enough? It obviously exists (why would I make it up), so you (being the great "genius" that you are) enlighten me on what I have to cite for it to be fixed or legit or whatever it has to be.User:RobDMB • 20:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Student band which fails WP:MUSIC; only reference is to student-run website reporting that the band came second in a battle of the bands contest. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN, but wouldn't complain about a redirect. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:MUSIC. Black Kite 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:Music
Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:MUSIC. Unfortunately no one has stepped in to save this article. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable a cappella group. Fails WP:MUSIC, as Yahoo reveals only one non-trivial story--this one from the San Diego Union-Tribune. I was in two minds as to whether to hit the AfD button, but the fact that the creator is Perunika (talk · contribs) clinched it. Blueboy96 18:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7 (no assertion of notability). Blueboy96 18:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This is not notable. End of story. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete. Wikipedia isn't just for Americans, a lot of people in Britain use wikipedia too. Just because some people haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it isn't notable. For example, some people haven't heard of Europium, but nobody deletes that article! Why are people anti-British? :-( Rich 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (talk • contribs)
Also I put a lot of hard work into making this article! It took me a very long time to get the correct grid reference Rich 18:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich nffc (talk • contribs)
The result was speedily deleted by author request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents a number of highly speculative reasons for the 24 hour day. Although these are mathematically correct, reliable sources have not been provided linking them to the invention of the 24 hour clock. Therefore the entire article is original research by synthesis. The only verifiable content, that the 24 hour clock was invented in ancient Egypt, is already discussed with sources in the article 12 hour clock. silly rabbit (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2D what is more appealing than the also periodic shape called hexagon that appears as minimal energy..., same for the 3D rhombic dodecahedron, and knowing that in the 1D they are only 3 objects, their is a good possibility that 24 looked liked the ideal number to symbolize time. It's just a hypothesis, but it refers to a very simple observational process of conceptualizing and assimilating the dimensions.Firedrop (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was Speedy Deleted last July, BLP concerns. To me, it looks like an indiscrimiate list. A lot of the article is unreferenced, and parts may be concerned trivia, as it is someone's nickname, which may not be notable for an encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, thus keep, though needs better sourcing to be honest. Black Kite 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hotel. No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. The fact that Dashiel Hammett's bride once spent a night there is completely trivial. Sandstein 17:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Triethanolamides such as a "cocamido triethanolamide" do not exist (at least not as stable compounds). A Beilstein database search did not give a single hit for any triethanolamide and only 5 suspect hits for trialkylamides in general. The confusion probably stems from listings were "cocamide" and "TEA" (triethanolamine) were listed subsequently as different chemicals. Cacycle (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3. user:Lyle123 hoax. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N et al. asenine say what? 17:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An internet search for the novels this person is best known for turns up no information; neither does a Google search for his name alone. Seems to be a non-notable person. Rnb (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy tag was declined but I think this is a straightforward non-notable autobiography, ie. spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Close As Misunderstanding Of Policy. Non-Admin Closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of nu metal bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The result was delete no independetly established notability. References are to self published works on other sites. It does look like a attempt to self promote. - Nabla (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason behind this are -
a. This seems to be a self advertisement. The article has been written by one of the concerned persons, Anil Aggarwala, who incidentally has authored a number of articles on himself and his achievements/books in wikipedia. The site's URL is http://sumerdoc.blogspot.com/.
b. The different references links provide in blog, when looked up, provides the following result -
c. A Google search (check it out here) does not offer established sources to verify the claims of notability by the Editor.
Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly repeat the internet search with the title "Sumer's Radiology Site" which is exact title of the weblog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs)
Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.58.16 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question in Journal of thoracic imaging is not a letter to editor its a review article kindly recheck and it acknowledges Rad-Blogging as a new phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.59.146 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This stand-alone list is severely lacking and impossible to complete. It fails to serve the purposes outlined under WP:LIST#Purposes of lists, has no notability criteria for inclusion and is not annotated, thereby providing no useful information whatsoever (perhaps except for sorting by province, which is entirely replaceable by subcategorising.) Paul_012 (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in perspective, there are a total of 33,902 registered functioning Buddhist temples in Thailand as of 2004 according to the ministry of culture.[29] Mentioning a handful, half of which are red links, with no regard to importance or notability, is unlikely to provide encyclopaedic information in my opinion. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Some sources have been found, and while they haven't satisfied everybody, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete, and a number of editors have expressed that this element in Half-Life is too important to remove. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability requirements for fiction, dealing entirely with the subject from an in universe perspective with no secondary sources which prove notability. I would say merge, except all the good info has been summarized within the games. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not much participation, but the conclusion seems pretty clear.--Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a dicdef. The only source I have been able to find is this essay in TIME Magazine, which says: "Malay shopkeepers call children baby-jaan, or "life,"... ". I'm not sure that's enough for notability. AecisBrievenbus 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This actually appears to be a hoax. There is a Jez Green who is a tennis coach, and there was a Jez Bennett in 2004 who won a Racketlon tourney (I looked that up too, Racketlon is a sport, just not popular in the US) I downloaded the list of rankings from the Racketlon tournaments and there is a Marta Jez and a Stephan Jezler currently playing, but no Jez Green...the article's creator is JezzyJez, I suspect its a youngster with the same name as the tennis coach just having a go at us. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally badly listed on another entry by Mattbroon. Here is his original text: a clear commercial exercise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattbroon (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) asenine say what? 16:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. EdJohnston (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; spam for a portfolio analyst with a doctorate in mathematics. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per the lack of reliable and verifiable sources, indicating a lack of notability.
Largely unreferenced (WP:V), and there are no independent references (I removed various dead links to the "unofficial wiki" and to a closed Fotolog account which I presume had a scan of what was claimed to be a Spanish Rolling Stones article.) The multiple, third-party, reliable, non-trivial coverage required for WP:Notability guidlines are not present. Marasmusine (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complete WP:OR, and a protologism. asenine say what? 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. GBT/C 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not list any sources and I cannot find any. Appears to fail WP:N. Biggest claim to notability appears to be a youtube video with 5000 views. TN‑X-Man 14:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Also, this is a complete hoax. No sources were cited. Holding the alt key while typing the numbers are enough, not pressing alt twice. Only Wikipedia popped out on a hunt at Google. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A one line biography of an individual who does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:BIO. No reliable sources found per searches on the article talk page. Prod was removed with the comment, "removed the need to delete as the information is accurate". Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by criterion WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No hits. None whatsoever. Possible hoax. asenine say what? 11:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no source information that this song is to be released as a single, cover is fake (a fan made picture that has been around for months), and nothing of note to warrant an article JKW111 (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meet basic notability guidelines - there are no published sources available and the article appears to have used MySpace as its source for some of the content. It is vandalised fairly frequently, and I don't ever see the article's subject meeting the guidelines. Edit: Also does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines either. Sagaciousuk (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable cricketer, he has failed to play a single first-class or List A match which is the notablity criteria for cricketers, see Wikipedia:CRIN Jpeeling (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Close as requested; the current redirect will be deleted. Waggers (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local association has 32 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7 with a sprinkling of salt. The article text was substantively similar to previous versions that were speedied, making it obvious that the author of the latest version was a sock of the original author, Nealante (talk · contribs). Both accounts blocked. Blueboy96 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist/producer who doesn't meet either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Article was originally created by the article's subject and has been CSDed several times over the last few days. After repeated recreation and removal of CSD and autobiography tags the identical article has been recreated by a SPA user, Spartin (talk · contribs). The article makes many claims of collaborations but supplies no references to back them up. "Nealante" achieves 75 gHits. WebHamster 09:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep The consensus has spoken, all hail the consensus. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is scope creep without a doubt. College football is not professional football, and articles on college football coaches with no independent sources really don't come close to satisfying the sourcing and notability requirements for living individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no new argument for deletion here, and all of the old ones still stand.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that help, at least for now?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Information After further research, I have learned that he was a member of the 1908 9-0 undefeated and 1909 8-1 teams at the University of Kansas. To top it off, he later became the president of Pritchett College in Missouri, and apparently this school's first president used the facilities to complie major work on the history of the discovery of the Great Red Spot.
Comment Hope that whoever looks at this now and sees a slight favor of delete realizes that most of those delete votes came before a lot of the new information was added about Dahlene becoming a college president and being a key member of the 1908/1909 KU football teams. Some people came in and made delete comments, then have not returned since the article has significantly improved.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a general comment, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Repeated nominations, I thought it might apply.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We've had a lot of good discussion on this one. Are we ready to come to a conclusion on this discussion? It's been over 5 days. Reference Deletion Discussion for policy. We have 7 editors in favor of "keep", 4 that support "delete", and two that modified their position of "delete" to either "Weak Keep" or "Neutral". I know that we're not looking for a "popular vote" to decide consensus, I just wanted to summarize the results.
I propose that in light of the discussions, the existing content changes, and the two previous discussions on notability that a consensus of KEEP has been reached. We should then keep the article and remove the AFD tag.
Any objections or discussion?? Anyone think that a consensus has not been reached, or that my summarization is incorrect or that I missed something?--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journalist. Satisfies none of the criteria for notability mentioned for journalists at WP:BIO#Creative professionals. Also orphaned; only links are from respective dab page and some misguided links from some NYPD Blue pages intended for a different Ted Mann who writes TV episodes. —97198 talk 13:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NN, WP:VER, WP:OR, and several other basic guidelines. Specifically:
Guliolopez (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original comic art deserves treatment in Wikipedia, but this is an inappropriate encyclopedic category. Anything useful here (there isn't much in the current article) would make more sense if merged into Comics or Comic book collecting (both of which already mention original art). The arbitrary focus on "comic book" as opposed to "newspaper comic" or any other kind is one of many reasons this article is better done away with than repaired. BTfromLA (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list with lots of external links. Wikipedia is not a driectory. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article subject might be notable, but the article is so poorly-written that it'd be better to delete and start it again. That is, if it's even notable, and not a soapbox/hoax article. Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 07:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin housekeeping closure) per CSD#G4 by User:Orangemike. WilliamH (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Band which fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Has been nominated and deleted before (deleted a total of four times) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Framing Hanley and the log) phøenixMøurning ( talk/contribs ) 07:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Google hits show only its own official website except some trivial information exist in other website. Furthermore, most information were copied from its subpage NAHID 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - No evidence of notability, no reliable third-party sources, etc. Black Kite 00:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of the Bionicle articles plot sections without any information to justify its own article. As such, it is purely duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has multiple serious issues, and should be deleted. To pick just two:
Article also substantively fails WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:SPAM, WP:COI (creator is WP:SPA and likely promoter of this "movement") and myriad other guidelines. This page is such a blatantly bad candidate article that I considered flagging for speedy delete. However, given that it's been around for a while, it possibly requires confirmed consensus. Would however recommend a quick turnaround on AfD discussion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celtic Affluenza. Guliolopez (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, where to begin. First of, this is a non notable voice actor. A handful of non notable roles and one or two notable ones, but that's it. Also, I can find virtually no reliable third party sources with any information on this person. Just your average media sites like IMDB, TV.com, etc., which all say the same things, more or less. Also, this article appears to have been proded in the past. It expired but for some reason was never deleted. Also, this article was apparently nominated for deletion before but never deleted. I cannot think of what makes this guy notable or where to find information. An article is not needed for every actor out there. There are plenty of actors, probably some with more roles than him, that don't have articles on Wikipedia. So, yeah, those are my reasons for deleting this page. SkepticBanner (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't paying any attention to this article back then. I must have misinterpreted what I saw. I think somebody might have objected without my noticing. Yeah, that's it. But back on topic, my case for deletion rests above. Your case for keeping is also above. I think we'd best get back to debating about whether he is notable enough or not. SkepticBanner (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article, possibly a hoax. Was tagged with PROD as such, detagged by article creator with no explanation given. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
article does not assert notability, no secondary sources listed, perhaps it could be merged into a broader article? Not even sure if one exists. Napsterbater (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - benefit of the doubt, as noted below. Will probably expand at some point. Black Kite 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no secondary sources, unresolved notability, unsubstantiated claims, no indication of notability for the award she won. Seems like she could be notable, but the few assertions are unclear, and unsubstantiated. Napsterbater (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet notability requirements for creative professionals, no significant and multiple secondary sources, unsubstantiated claims. Napsterbater (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like spam...Modernist (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Nomination withdrawn. J.delanoygabsadds 04:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]
Fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom per the references provided later. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Result was Speedy close, wrong venue. This belongs at WP:RFD. - Revolving Bugbear 14:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was already supported in 2005; the article Boeing 797 is back again and still has no substantiated references and is not even explained in the redirect article; see Boeing 797 talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolypolyman (talk • contribs)
The result was redirect. Flowerparty☀ 22:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline incomprehensible article created by a problem user. Duplicates information found in Borough (New York City), Administrative divisions of New York, and elsewhere (note that the links to the county names all lead to redirects, since the counties are coterminous with the NYC boroughs and have no separate governments of their own). The redirect created by the author at County (New York City) also should be deleted. Deor (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason for nomination. Lack of notability. Few hits, most from extremist websites. Antonrojo (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I am the article creator) As to WP:BK - The book has been reviewed in several media. I first learned about Double Cross in a review which appeared in Roman Forum (together with the Pope’s book on Jesus!). I have since found that Catholic media such as the Catholic Herald have written about it. As to WP:OR – I would like to know which bits are “making claims outright” which are unacceptable. The article is meant to be descriptive only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serioso (talk • contribs) 10:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Roman Forum is not an online but a printed magazine. The Catholic Herald which reviewed the book is a weekly published in the UK. The book has also been reviewed by the Midwest Book Review, the Library Journal, The Newsletter of the Secular Society in the UK, the Newsletter of the German Humanist Society.
As to the suggestion concerning outright claims - the article is purely informative and does not make any claims of its own - whatever other people´s feelings are about books which criticise the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.159.6.64 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:N as she has only played very small roles...I couldn't find any news hits, and she doesn't appear to even be listed at the IMDB (I know, not a reliable source, but does provide some confirmation) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 22:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails to establish how this radio personality is notable. No mention of awards, industry contributions, or syndication that would indicate that he is notable outside of the local market. Zero verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 02:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about non-notable golfer apparently written by subject himself. I cannot find any non-trivial third-party web references to either Drew Krowsoski or Andrew Michael Krowsoski DAJF (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as the creation of a banned user. If anyone finds this a worthwhile topic and wants to create it from scratch, this deletion does not preclude such a decision. --B (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason any of these subjects are mentioned is because of their connection to Barack Obama. As is often brought up in these discussions, notability is not inherited and none of the subjects are otherwise notable. Obama's coffee mug is also often mentioned in articles about him but we don't need to start an article called "Coffee mug of Barack Obama."
Update: The user that created this article, DianeFinn (talk · contribs) has been blocked by Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as yet another sockpuppet of Dereks1x (talk · contribs).[49]. This article is no different than the previous article on Malia Obama created by the same banned user which was speedily deleted for the same reasons. See [50] for the archived discussion. All of the same arguments apply here. Loonymonkey (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per general-consensus
The subject of this article only exists through a PR blurb. Sources are fine, but the article itself lacks substance and notability. D-Day (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a compilation of all the characters of various non-nintendo media featuring mario. That information belongs in the respective article, not listed here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims notability by being the founder and the namesake for a community, and there's effectively a hangon present at the bottom of the page; therefore, definitely asserts notability. However, this guy doesn't appear at all notable; it's simply that he's mentioned in a genealogy book and (although the article doesn't use it) in a local history book (see Warrensville Township's section in Defunct townships of Cuyahoga County, Ohio): passing mentions don't make him at all notable. Nyttend (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence that this one fighter passes WP:BIO. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is an un-notable martial arts practitioner. The only match he has ever participated in was in 1998 and he lost. A Google search for "Adriano Santos" martial brings up 138 results and a search for "Adriano Santos" fight nets 352 results. I was unable to find any Google news results on him but this is probably because he is not recent. - Icewedge (talk) 01:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
notability not established, no significant secondary coverage listed, subject may be notable in the future, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Napsterbater (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a fictional character on the Bubba the Love Sponge show. As it is a fictional character, I do not feel that it meets Wikipedia notability standards for inclusion. I understand that there are other fictional characters that do have articles on Wikipedia, but this one is a stretch. Suggest deletion or - at the very best - a selective merge into the BTLS article. InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A local pub, lacking substantial notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball keep, but let's be careful about how long the list gets Grutness...wha? 01:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this article. You cant find the names compiled like this on any other page here... I need this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.105.145 (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a hoax. GBT/C 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I smell a hoax - is my WP olfactory working correctly? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep or No Consensus to delete or merge that's for sure. (Non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local library; perhaps a merger into the WP article on Kitsap County is possible? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Flowerparty☀ 22:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable three-year-old independent film that is not in commercial theatrical or DVD release. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY KEEP, per 4 speedy keep and 2 keep votes vs. 0 delete votes, also see Wikipedia:Snowball clause. JIP | Talk 03:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is she notable on her own? Merge into Adolf Hitler article DimaG (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Google hits show only its own official website except some trivial information exist in other website. Furthermore, most information were copied from its subpage NAHID 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]