The result was keep. Waggers (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two sources, one is self-published and the other is just a list of gigs. Hence, fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. This article needs multiple, reliable, independent sources, and doesn't have them. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demo albums generally fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. PROD was contested back in November. B. Wolterding (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed with maintenance tags for references and notability, prodded by me on the grounds that no attention paid to the notability tag, prod and maintenance tags removed by unregistered editor without any improvement. Only edit by article's starter, so probably fails WP:COI Richhoncho (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here per request of editor responding to request at AfC. Has some sources but may not be reliable enough to pass WP:MUSIC. So, after he put ((hangon)) and myself and another user discussed it with him, we agreed to take it here and let the community decide. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all per nominator's rationale, and consensus to follow. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a bit ridiculous to bring these demo albums to AfD, since they clearly fail WP:MUSIC#Albums. But at least the first one is a contested PROD (recreated after deletion), so it needs to go here. The band itself barely passes the notability criteria.
I also nominate the other demo albums of this band; the sources they refer to (if any) are the band's web page and private websites.
--B. Wolterding (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom. — iridescent 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If ever there was an "indescernable or unclassifiable topic", this is it. I'm not at all sure what this is, but I'm sure it doesn't belong here. — iridescent 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE This article was significantly rewritten and documented after the AfD -- it was a hopeless mess when nominated. --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Online game without evidence of notability; fails WP:WEB. Note: The article survived a mass nomination last year, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD). Tagged with ((notability)) since July 2007. B. Wolterding (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable piece of in-universe information that has no relevance outside of the work of fiction. Wikipedia is not a repository of obscure technical information about fictional universes. Chardish (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (non-admin closure). Deleted 4 times - A7 by Nakon, A1 by Acroterion, A1 by Ohnoitsjamie, and A7 by NawlinWiki. WilliamH (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently a non-notable series of characters; Google returns only (what I believe to be) the blog responsible for creating them. Rnb (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This event doesn't seem to have sufficiently widespread notability to me -- although the article claims multiple reliable sources, only one is cited (a column at SFgate.com). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling event. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 20:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author. This does not appear to be an encyclopedia article, but an essay describing a phenomenon. The use of terms like "solutions" make it almost appear to be spam, but not for any product in particular. Honestly, I don't see the point of this article. JuJube (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. What does this article want to be? If this article really want to be about a clinical condition called "ephebiphobia", then I would have to say no, that is not a condition notable enough to have a separate article, instead redirect to List of phobias.
If the article want to be a gussied up version of the article "Old Folks SUX" then no, we don't need an original research essay on that topic, thanks.
The first Google hit for "ephebiphobia" is this article, the third is uses this article as a reference, and the second is an entity called "freechild.org". The main protector of this article is User:freechild and this is no coincidence, this article was designed and is maintained as an unsubtle POV hammer. Sure it has a lot of citations; good original essays do. Herostratus (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is actually the second AfD for this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephebophobia for the first. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Freechild'sup? 19:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Hello again, Herostratus. Yes, I created this article in 2005 under the name "Ephebiphobia"; it was then proposed for deletion and the proposal was rejected. Apparently someone two years later changed the article's name to this new one, "Fear of Youth".
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis/non-encyclopedic essay. It'd be one thing if this was a list of international players or an article about the history of International Players in the NBA, but it's an essay essentially mostly about the San Antonio Spurs. SmashvilleBONK! 19:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established, no references, previously deleted. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New webzine has not yet achieved notability; only 66 Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient references to show notability. Triwbe (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). Rename to Tube trumpet. SilkTork *YES! 08:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
A joke instrument, as defined by the article itself, with a trivia link to cartoon of a similar joke (but not the same instrument as in this article). A Google search has so far only turned up spam links by the creator of the instrument. Not a hoax as such, as the Hosaphone website exists with pictures of the instrument - but simply not yet notable enough for a stand alone article. I did ponder if there was a place to redirect the article, but couldn't think of anywhere obvious. The instrument is supposedly a joke response to the natural trumpet, but I can't see this joke instrument finding a comfortable slot in that article. SilkTork *YES! 18:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom + his points above. I agree this is clearly a joke and not notable in an encyclopedic context. Rename per the nominator's position below. Eusebeus (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly non-notable founder of a thoroughly non-notable martial art (also being AFD'ed). Lack of sources for only (exceedingly minor) claim of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications. There is no present agreement on how high a book must fall on Amazon's sales rank listing (in the "product details" section for a book's listing) in order to provide evidence of its notability, vel non."
Lameco eskrima does not seem to be a major school, and being mentioned by books about Filipino martial arts is not, in my opinion, enough to establish notability. I would say that to be notable he would have had to have made a major impact on the practice of eskrima. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello I am a new member here and I would like to comment on this attempt to delete both Punong Guro Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima from Wikipedia.
Are you kidding me with this??? Seriously let`s look at this great mans contributions to the Indigenous Filipino Warrior Arts both directly and indirectly. Edgar G. Sulite wrote three best selling books Internationally and had the best selling video series produced through Curtis Wong Enterprises (Inside Kung-Fu) for years. Even 11 years after his death his books and videos are still in demand.
Edgar G. Sulite has trained and is qualified to teach under some of the most noteworthy and combat proven Masters in 20th century Filipino history. He is a direct student and a certified Master in Kali Pekiti-Tirsia under Grand Tuhon Leo T. Gaje jr. He was one of the 5 pillars of Kalis Illustrisimo and a direct student and certified Master of Kalis Illustrisimo under Grand Master Antonio "Tatang" Illustrisimo. He was a certified instructor under the very well respected and feared "Juey go todo" champion Manong Jose D. Caballero of De Campo uno-Dos-Tres Orihinal. In writing his last book he traveled to numerous remote locations across the Philippines to interview, train with and document the histories of so many, at that time living legends, of the Filipino Warrior Arts who are sadly no longer with us, which is such a huge contribution to our community in and of itself. Had he not documented their histories we would have lost so much had they taken their individual experiences with them to the grave. Because of the efforts of Edgar G. Sulite we have documented personal information and personal experiences of these great warriors in their own words.
Edgar Sulite was also instructor to Dan Inosanto, Bruces Lees best friend and successor to Jeet Kune Do. As well Edgar G. Sulite was an instructor to Larry Hartsell, another Bruce Lee student who trained with all of the legends at Bruce Lees China town school in Los Angeles. Edgar G. Sulite was also an instructor to such noted Filipino Warrior Art persoanlities such as: Christopher Ricketts, Ray Floro, Marc Denny (Dog Brothers), Steve Grody, Ron Baliki and Burt Richardson to name only a few, all of whom have created major succes for themselves and regard his instruction to be very influential to their success.
We currently have Lameco Eskrima students in more than 25 countries on 5 continents. As well Edgar G. Sulites Lameco Eskrima has been taught to our own Elite U.S. Special Operations Soldiers ranging from Navy S.E.A.L`s, Green Beret`s, Black Op`s and Marine forced Recon as well as U.S. Friendly Foreign Spec. Op`s soldiers in various foreign countries. I have taught numerous Special Operations Soldiers in the art of Lameco Eskrima for more than a decade and I currently have numerous students fighting in both Iraq and Afganistan where they are from time to time required to utilize these skills for survival.
Edgar Sulite was also a Body guard of President Marcos, General Estrada and General Ver of the philippines during the late 80`s before and during the Filipino coup which eventually forced President Marcos to flee and go into exile in Hawaii until he died there. Edgar G. Sulite was also the instructor to Filipino action star Roland Dantes and frequently trained actio star Ronnie Ricketts in addition to assuming numerous "Bad guy" roles in several films in the Philippines.
So to say that Punong Guro Edgar G. Sulite is "Not Notable" and that Lameco Eskrima is not an "influencial" system is an insult. My advice to Tall Napoleon is to do your research before you slander someones good name and reputation. Edgar G. Sulite is as real as you get and anyone would be estatic to have a portion of the pedigree that he does. I say that both Edgar G. Sulite and Lameco Eskrima should be kept as is on wikipedia and if people have a problem with his articles than I will personally take a look at them and with the assistance of my Lameco Eskrima brothers edit where necessary.
Guro Dave Gould www.LamecoEskrima.org
Strong Keep Edgar G. Sulite has been referenced and acknowledged in numerous books written by noted authors, International Magazines and video tapes featuring some of the most noteworthy experts in their specific field of expertise.
Steve Tarani acknowledged the contributions made by Edgar G. Sulite in his book "The Naked Edge" (Unique Publications 2002). He credits Edgar G. Sulite`s influence in directly furthering Mr. Tarani`s career in teaching elite Law enforcement officers which include Agents and Special Agents with the F.B.I., C.I.A., D.E.A., D.O.J., Dept. of homeland defense, correction officers and local Law Enforcement. Steve Tarani is also a fire Arms and tactical weapon Instructor for "Quantico" F.B.I. academy as well as an Instructor for "Gunsite".
Author Mark v. Wiley acknowledges and features Edgar G. Sulite in his book "Filipino Martial Culture" (Tuttle 1996). He dedicates chapter 22 to Lameco Eskrima, Edgar G. Sulite and his profound influence on the Pilipino Warrior Arts community as a whole.
Author Reynaldo S. Galang acknowledges Edgar G. Sulite in his book "Warrior Arts of the Philippines" (Argee enterprises 2005). Master Rey Galang dedicates 25 pages of this book to Edgar G. Sulite and his accomplishments and achievements in the Pilipino Warrior Arts.
Author Reynaldo S. Galang acknowledges Edgar G Sulite in his book "Masters of the Blade" (Argee Enterprises 2005). In addition to Master Rey Galang numerous Masters featured in this book also contribute Edgar G. Sulites influence as being beneficial to their success and evolution in the warrior arts.
Edgar G. Sulite over many years has also been featured in numerous articles both here in the U.S. and abroad and has been given the honor of being placed on the cover of many of these Magazines including "Inside Kung-Fu" (I believe october 1995) and "Filipino Martial Arts" (CFW Enterprises January 2001).
Guro Dave Gould. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guro Dave Gould (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete; see also OTRS #2008050110015682. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article when it appeared that this TV station was going to be carrying several minor league sports events. Since then the league hasn't broadcast those games yet, so I don't believe it's notable anymore. Furthermore, the President of the network is using the article as his own propaganda piece. I think that it's best at this point to just scrap the whole thing. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G7. At first glance it doesn't look like a G7 at all, yet, seeing as how the only other contributor to the article represents a clear coi and has been blocked, I think G7 should be honored. But thats just my opinion. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The references provided by SmokeyJoe were not substantial.Fabrictramp (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns; there is no indication how many members of professional rugby are supervised by this league association, if any. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rugbyleaguereview.com.au/world.htmThe Maltese Rugby League Association (MRLA) has never been in a stronger position since its inception into the Rugby League world a mere three years ago. Rugby League played on the Maltese Islands, a three man committee based in Malta committed to the code's development and a domestic competition set to kick off in October with no less than four teams at one of the few grassed pitches on the island. Follow the Maltese Rugby League every month in Rugby League Review.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Proposals to merge can obviously be dealt with on the article's talk page, but apart from a smattering of such suggestions, the most conspicious view put forward is that this is notable. Either way, there is clearly no salient consensus to delete the article. WilliamH (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a lot of thought into this. Originally I had redirected this page to South Asian American. I felt that the term ABCD had too much of a "slang"-like connotation. The discussion to perform the redirect can be seen here. The merge was supported by numerous editors. I was since informed that there are numerous sources. I checked out these references, and although they do describe the subject, I still feel there is a problem in light of WP:NOT. The term itself is a synonym for second-generation South-Asian Americans. As such, it is a sub-class of South-Asian Americans in general. The "Confused" attribute is extremely subjective. Fact-wise, the article does not provide much, and I doubt the subject will actually allow for any sort of factual description (everything is already covered by South Asian American). The only thing left is an exploration of the "Confused" theme with respect to identify conflict, which would make the article like an essay or opinion piece and therefore not in line with WP:NOT. Instead of a delete, I wouldn't mind a redirect/merge either. vi5in[talk] 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While topic might be notable, the article would need to be scrapped and totally rewritten. I couldn't find it on Google, but I would be willing to bet this is a cut-and-paste job - if someone can find it, this should be speedied per WP:COPYVIO. Tan | 39 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. I'm sorry to bring such a long, thorough debate to such an anticlimactic end, but the discussion below presents a large number of competing, well-reasoned opinions without arriving at a definitive conclusion. --jonny-mt 05:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Genealogy page for a completely non-notable Civil War soldier. The complete lack of notability makes for a very boring read, but by all means slog through it if you don't believe me. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Notability was established. Magioladitis (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail notability guidelines for companies. Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP, per Blanchardb, no assertion of notability. WilliamH (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable even within UNC. Article is imprecise and adds little, and it seems unlikely it ever will since this is a "secret" society. Yellowspacehopper (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a hoax (WP:CSD#G3). Yep, I know that "hoax" is generally not a valid reason to speedy delete, but the reason for that is the danger of false positives (i.e. misidentifying something as a hoax, when it is actually true but obscure.) In this case, we have given the article so much attention, and the hoax allegations are no longer substantiated merely by "We haven't heard about it, and we cannot find references", but an active proof that the article is a lie along the lines "all the references are wrong, and every piece of the article is taken from another article". Since the reason for not speedy deleting hoaxes is no longer valid for this particular article, and since the presence of hoaxes and misinformation is actively harmful, I have no compunctions against removing the article as vandalism right now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author has removed speedy tag three times, but overnight developed the article to the point where an AfD is probably prudent. Subject is just not notable - a current college student who did pretty good in one or two tournaments. This is basically a vanity page. Tan | 39 14:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. May be restored to merge with an article about the case if one gets written. Sandstein (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I listed this for speedy deletion this morning - this guy may have confessed to murder, but legally he has not yet been tried and has not been found guilty of murder. So, legally, he's an innocent man until proven guilty. I can very much believe that he did do it, but it's not yet been proven in law. So at the moment we've got an article about someone which states that he's a serial killer, and states as a fact that "His final victim was the 10-year old girl Engla". I think that this is a big legal problem for wikipedia, which is why I flagged it for speedy deletion. For ten hours, administrators went through and got rid of everything else in the speedy delete category, but just left this here. So I put a "help me" tag on my user page, asking why, and someone called Wknight94 responded to my "help me" request by belittling me, saying "I'm not sure why you're so excited about this". Hey, Wikipedia sure is a friendly, welcoming place! I've edited anonymously for a while now, and decided to start an account, and I don't think this was a very nice welcome...
Anyway, I'm sure that in time he WILL be found guilty, and when that happens he needs a page as his notability will be firmly established. In the meantime, surely this article needs to go - being a truck driver isn't notable (what a ridiculous page title - "Anders Eklund (trucker)"!) and nor is the fact that he's been convicted of exposing himself and "other minor offences". When he's found guilty, start an article. Until then, delete! Patty Fantastic (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sorry, I was unaware of this policy. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Placeholder for a nonexistent article. ((db-empty)) has been removed by a third party. Regardless of either editor's intentions, this article must be deleted without prejudice per WP:BLANK. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completion of incomplete AfD nomination. No rationale given. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO Notability established through mentions in several reliable independent sources. This person was on a prime time television series that aired throughout Europe in which she starred with Jack Osbourne. She is not just a business person, but a television personality, as well as being noted in the press as a builder of the falcon motorcycles (see references) and as others have noted, comes from a prominent family of public interest . Motoguzzi2 | talk 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
External links
delete no general notability. The company is a niche company, not necessarily important enough that its ceo is automatically important, and the evidence in the articles cited does not show she was the principal designer of the prize winning bike. On the contrary--the LA Times article headline says "Custom ace Ian Barry and actor Jason Lee are behind the Bullet Falcon". I trust their reporter more than the above arguments. Similarly, the articles on the tour refer to her partner as the important figure. Again, I trust the reporters on this. The SF Chronicle article heralded above merely mentions her. The references do not at all support the claims in the article. As for minor issues, being on Ophrah by itself is not notability. Her notable family does not make her notable. Her charitable campaign does not have a WP articles, so its hard to judge. I note that all the substantial information in this article is already in the article on the company. DGG (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep person is of notability. Many are missing a point. She was the co-lead with Jack Osbourne of a vastly successful prime time television series in Europe. Falcon Motorcycles, having just won 'best custom motorcycle' at Legend Of The Motorcycle, the worlds only international concours for motorcycles, is a far cry from a niche company, but rather the premeir custom motorcycle builders in the eyes of the motorcycle industry at large, for the year 2008. Knight is noted in all articles as being a joint partner in Falcon and an active part in the sourcing and design of the bikes (as per intersection magazine linked to article - and in the linked San Francisco Chronicle they cite Knight and Ian Barry as being given the award jointly for the build of the Bullet Falcon Motorcycle.) When viewing the Legend Of The Motorcycle press page on the Legends website itself, Knight is covered in as many photographs as Barry, and in their literature, it is clearly stated that the Bullet Falcon was built by "Ian Barry & Amaryllis Knight of Falcon Motorcycles". See photograph of Legend Of The Motorcycle plaque labeling bike at the international concours, and the award was presented by [Jesse G. James]] to both Knight and Barry jointly. I agree that having notible family does not make Knight notable, but when added to the list of things that do, her family being notable is certainly of public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.250.70 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on a company CEO. No significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as non notable bio (A7). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on a WWII pilot. No significant coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Hacienda La Puente Unified School District. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear notable. Epbr123 (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. While I understand Wanderer's comment, it [14] doesn't appear that there's anything notable to write about this school. RS coverage is limited to name drops of attendees and people who worked there. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Our French-speaking colleagues seem to have come to the same conclusion. Sandstein (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had a speedy delete requests, been prodded a couple times and been to AFD before. The subject also has nearly identical articles in 5 other languages et:Seyhan Kurt, fr:Seyhan Kurt, 'Italic text' it:Seyhan Kurt, pt:Seyhan Kurt, tr:Seyhan Kurt. There is every indication that subject should be notable and that great references should be available, the problem is that while of this should be possible none of it seems to actually be true. The Basic criteria is A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. With five languages articles to chose from not a single one has a reliable non-primary references.
There is no indication or claim in the English language version of the article that subject meets the Notability requirements for Any biography
There also is no indication or claim in the English language version of the article that subject meets the Notability requirements for Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
I came across this article while working Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles and have no vested interest in the article or the subject other then to ensure that article meets at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference. If such a reference was available I would have much preferred to included it in the article rather then bring this article to AFD. A good faith effort to find a reliable reference was not successful.
Additionally per WP:V #Burden of evidence The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
This article's complete content has been challenged a number of times, but in two years not a single reliable reference has been provided.
I ask the community if this article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jeepday (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article was very significantly improved from May 4 on, which is why the earlier "delete" or "redirect" opinions would seem to no longer apply. Incidentally, AfDs should not be used to propose redirects, only deletions. Sandstein (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A minor plot device in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The lead is actually just about all that can be said on the subject, the rest is a repeat of a section of plot summary from the main article plus a bit of trivia that largely reads as novel synthesis. Time for a redirect, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hum. 21 unique Google hits, including nothing that looks like a reliable non-trivial source about the group. A splinter group of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party, which polled fewer votes than the OMRLP in the tiny number of elections they contested. I suppose the fact that the leader then joined the Monster Raving Tory Party might score some points for political humour, but that's about it. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Redirecting the dead page at editorial discretion. Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject was defeated in the 2004 Presidential Election on a ticket that attracted 0.0015% of the popular vote. For every person that voted this ticket, around 32,000 voted for each fo the two main candidates.
That's probably why the article is a stub with zero independent sources... Guy (Help!) 11:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Islamic view of the Last Judgment. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay about an element of the Islam religion. Note that "Signs of qiyam" is not a religious term. PeterSymonds | talk 11:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged with issues since November and not fixed, and some Googling did not find any reliable independent sources from which it could be fixed. There appears to be a bit of a walled garden around the Socialist Equality Party and its website. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreation of deleted article. ... discospinster talk 21:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All this is covered in The Amory Wars, Coheed and Cambria etc. Perhaps some could be integrated but I feel most is already covered. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Story of Claudio said delete, but it's still here? Jack?! 11:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously non-notable band, though I don't think this falls under A7. PROD'ed and appealed. Sam Korn (smoddy) 10:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although the band is unsigned, does that mean they cant have a page on wiki?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffman2k5 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The fact that these famous people are radio operators does not make the topic notable. The information belongs in the individual articles of the subjects rather than here. Malinaccier (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The primary amateur radio article used to contain a similar list of amateur radio users, and was deleted as being simple trivia. This article is exactly the same, simple listcruft. These may be famous people, but they are not famous in any way for holding an amateur radio license. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability Axl (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly notable attorney. Looks more like an advert for his business (I've removed one more spammy part) Declined WP:CSD#A7 speedy. Pedro : Chat 09:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted under WP:CSD#G3 and likely WP:CSD#G10 Pedro : Chat 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic article - possibly a hoax which does not establish notability. Deadly∀ssassin 08:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability and reads like and advertisement. It is orphaned, but that alone is not reason enough to delete. THobern 08:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete (even discounting my own opinion, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to be notable. Just another YouTube user. Paradoxsociety 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)) |
Star Tribune Interview The Minneapolis Star Tribune will be doing an article on me soon, so therefore I am noteworthy enough to be featured in a respected paper. Once the interview is up, this article will be backed by an outside source, and therefore validated. I urge the final decider not to delete the page someone created of me, due to this fact. For now, the sources hold true -- the photographical evidence of source #1 was provided by me, and clearly shows that the 800,000 views are real. I don't own a robot refresh program, so the notion that they were attained with fraud is preposterous.
The result was redirect to The Adicts. Spellcast (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. While the band The Adicts may be notable, the lead singer is not necessarily notable as notability cannot be inherited. At the moment this article does not establish notability. Deadly∀ssassin 07:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as repost of deleted material per previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of Arms of Coates nancy (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a list of 5 people who have a coat of arms. Three of one surname, and two of another. Having a coat of arms does not make someone notable. Note this article seems to have been previously deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coat of Arms of Coates. Celtus (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation if substantiated by reliable sources. Ty 04:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals couple of local awards exhibitions does not make artist notable GameKeeper (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Probable hoax and non-verifiable. Malinaccier (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probable joke hoax article created February 2008, previously speedy deleted and arisen from the dead. Notability claims of drummer fame for a band and a line of clothing, both with zero Google hits, achieved at the tender age of nine and ten. Married a former Miss USA by the age of 16, received commercial endorsement deals, and so on. None of the claims appear valid based on multiple online searches. Regardless of the jokes, the article fails the core policy of verifiable accuracy to establish any notability. Michael Devore (talk) 05:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recruiter already exists; this is really just simply placing an adjective in front and making a new article. Perhaps a tidbit or two could be added to the Recruiter article, but there is no need for this one. Tan | 39 05:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Establishes notability through media coverage. Malinaccier (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article pushes POV. It is also not notable. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 05:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as conformant to WP:SS. (My personal opinion as a non-US editor, though, is that we may cover this particular issue a bit too much in-depth.) Sandstein (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prod tagged this article with "Poor choice of a fork of Gun politics in the United States - this is the main topic of that article. A glance at the talk page of the older article reveals too little discussion of this forking to believe that it would be a consensus view had it gotten a wider airing. The older article has a huge "gun culture" section; that has its own article, so trim it instead." I should have said "spinout article" where I said "fork", because my prod tag was removed. Some background; on May 1st somebody put a "too long" tag on the article. Three editors (one somewhat unwillingly) then decided that this was the appropriate course of action--spinning out the the main topic of the old article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The only references are to the official homepage (currently down) and a wiki devoted to the game, neither of which establish notability. Closedmouth (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 11:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research essay...a blog post rather than a scholarly encyclopedic evaluation of a book. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 05:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, no proof that this album even exists yet. Only tracks are rumors, only source is MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed without comment or discussion. Wikipedia is not a directory, and a list of the bus routes in Warwickshire is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. A merge was suggested, which would not solve the problem: this information does not belong in Stagecoach in Warwickshire either. The subject of this article is simply a poor duplication of Stagecoach's timetable website. FrankTobia (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article was cleaned up during the AFD. By the end of the discussion there was a clear consensus that the page should be kept, including the nominator. (Non-admin closure.) BlueValour (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability and article content consists almost entirely of lists. Grimhim (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability: there are many Pincodes in India. Why should this one Pincode have its own article? Joe Sperrazza (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Dhartung has provided sources showing the individual was notable; none of the deletes have made a compelling argument.Fabrictramp (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person is only notable for the manner of his death. He was not notable in life, no secondary sources are provided which discussed him while he was alive. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting this up for deletion on behalf of User:Shovon76 and User:NawlinWiki who thought that Violet was not notable enough in her own right. Oore (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from this brief mention there are press releases and ghits that you'd expect from a website -- but nothing to establish notabily per WP: WEB TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 01:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Word - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Lemmey talk 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on a painter. Little coverage found on Google. Epbr123 (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a coatrack - it strings together various bits about Plamegate to make it seem like a coherent "alternative theory" about it exists - which does not appear to be the case. It's also a soapbox. Moreover, some of the sources it relies on are highly suspect - WorldNetDaily, freerepublic.com, and at least 9 blogs and self-published sources. Given that, and the uncited claims (think BLP concerns), and the fact that not every rumour deserves its place here, especially when we already have a giant article on Plamegate itself, deletion appears the best option. Biruitorul (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pornstar with no significant coverage and who doesn't seem to pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per sources found by Vinh1313. Epbr123 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Džej Ramadanovski. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Track list and nothing further. Jón + 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]