The result was keep (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 06:54, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be totally nonnotable. This museum was open for only one year, and there are no sources. Fails Google News test. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Stifle (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are no independent reliable sources establishing the independent notability of this fictional character. Violates WP:PLOT as being nothing but a re-statement of the film's plot. Otto4711 (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no sources; tagged as hoax; just a mess, non-notable person - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 23:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
talk:69.140.152.55|talk]]) 04:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brand new label, only links to own website. not notable. Lots of crystalballing as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 12:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the removal of a speedy tag by the creator, the article has nevertheless been expanded. However, it has been expanded into a coatrack article in which one would be hard-pressed to see where the title fits in. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 12:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not software user manual. Twri (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It's becoming clear that this was also sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry Xclamation point 00:15, 6 October 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)) . |
Speedily deleted four times as a non-notable forum. The latest recreation asserts notability; however, a brief look at the cited sources yields no non-trivial coverage from an appropriate source. Deletion was endorsed at deletion review in June of this year.OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:11, 5 October 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)) . |
A speedy tag has been removed by an IP. No assertion of notability. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. P.S. Protest the Hero is a great band. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 04:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably hoax. Searching results in no hits for the condition or the names listed. Disputed PROD. Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Messy article which purports to be about a company but which also appears to be a WP:COATRACK for biographies of the founders and the company publications (and both of these subjects have significantly longer sections than that for the company itself). The company itself indicates no notability. The founders fail to meet WP:BIO. The section on books shows nothing to meet WP:BK and quotes publicity material in contravention of WP:SPAM. The entire article has no reliable sources - the only references are to the company's own website or to Wikipedia pages which do not support the assertion. The author shows no sign of resolving these issues - tags are simply removed without addressing the issues raised. Delete. Ros0709 (talk) 22:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Stub of a potential book on Statistical practice; if this is an article, what is its subject? Transwiki to Wikibooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable DimaG (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a philosopher and author who (if the birth date given is correct) is 107 years old. Written in a facetious tone (e.g. " ...policies including customary beard growth for all, and legalising the shooting of poor people" and " ...became a member of the "Library Gang" alongside Mahatma Ghandi, Oliver Cromwell, and God") and offering no evidence of notability except that he has "with others, penned many books." Possible hoax, but anyway non-notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revised nomination: I should have looked at the history. The facetious parts of the article were the work of an IP vandal. I have reverted it to the version before that; but there is still no evidence of notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivial and unnecessary list. It is essentially game guide material that provides absolutely no context to the reader. TTN (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Nonnotable film in production that also appears to serve as an advertisement since the film is being made by Pluin Productions and the sole contributor of merit to the article has been User:Pluin. A Google search for the term "Sign Gene" film has 169 hits, of which only one (the article in question) actually mentions the film (which alone is not enough for notability). No hits on Google News. Perhaps the time will come when this film becomes notable, but since it hasn't been released yet (its existance cant even be verified yet), the article only contains speculative crystal ball predictions. Themfromspace (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Scary Movie (series). The content is still in the history at the old title for anyone caring to merge it. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research: a novel theory (admitted to by the original editor on the article's talk page) with no independent sources to demonstrate that it is generally notable. Furthermore, there are no sources to verify the source. Even the college's website, offered as a link by the original editor, made no reference to the concept. Wikipedia is not a venue for original publication. —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be about a Japanese band. It claims notability (the band apparently had the "highest-ever selling instrumental singles in Japan"), but the only source is the band's myspace page. I'm not finding reliable sources about this group, though my ability to search Japanese sources is limited. The article appears to fail on Notability and Reliable Sourcing. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete anyway by Ioeth , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent non-notable promotional, but a fuss made over speedy. I like being formal. WilyD 20:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Conservative. BJTalk 04:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While used too much to likely be under WP:NEO, it doesn't have a singular definition. At best, it would be a wikitionary entry, not an encyclopedia article. As it is, it is purely original research. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, non notable board game, no independent references, reads like a promotional piece. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a notable subject; as written, however, it's merely an essay. We may as well start from scratch, if at all. Biruitorul Talk 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ | There have been many attempts to define mental health promotion. To date, there is no consensus in the field as to what it entails. While some understand it as a holistic concept including intervening at structural, societal and political levels to positively influence mental health, others conceptualise it basically as strategies with an individual focus to improve personal competencies. Many of these differences are related to the distinct understanding of the concepts of mental well-being and positive mental health. | ” |
The result was Delete by TexasAndroid as G7 (NAC) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO, term has 9 ghits, one of which is this article. Article was just created. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be an expanded dictionary definition and I can't find any reliable sources to support either the existence or notability of this term. The article's talk page seems to indicate that this is a neologism. TN‑X-Man 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party sources as required by wp:v, does not indicate notability, prod removed because of wp:WAX. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-01t19:23z 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as CSD#A7. SoWhy 19:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Facebook - this is just a 16 year old's (well, 16 tomorrow) autobiography. Doug Weller (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy-deleted outside of Afd as G12. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed a bunch of hits in archival news databases, but a great majority of them are either passing mentions, or worse yet press releases and promotional/publicity statements drafted by the company itself. I am not certain that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and will defer to community consensus on that. The article was previously deleted as Blatant Advertising, and since its recreation has been unsourced and tagged as not notable for about a month. Cirt (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is that the season is not sufficiently notable for its own article TravellingCari 00:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons for individual junior teams are not notable in such detail. As has been the past concensus for junior seasons only an overall league season should exist. The most recent example of such a season falling to AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 St. John's Fog Devils season. However there have been example of this at many levels of hockey such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000-01 Huntsville Tornado Season and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Rogue Valley Wranglers hockey team and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007-08 Alexandria Glens season. NHL team seasons have been stated to barely meet the criteria themselves. Djsasso (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (nominator withdrew). --Rifleman 82 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one-line article does not suggest that its topic, a software program, is notable; it's virtually orphaned and not even mentioned, let alone linked, in the article for the company that makes it. Prod was removed on the basis of the reference, which appears to be a review in a journal of this and three similar programs. Propaniac (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page was started by User:Robalot on 30 September 2008. That was the only edit by the user. Google search shows nothing, the article could be a WP:HOAX. Even if it is not a hoax, there is no indication of notability. AdjustShift (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. leaning keep following improvements. Consensus is split leaning keep. TravellingCari 00:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of organization not established Appraiser (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 04:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Elleachaudaucul (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was db-spam. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks suspiciously like spam and does not assert notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW Keep (non-admin closure), as the notability of this highly influential film series is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of plot summaries of the Dirty Harry films (each of which have their own article), speculation about a future film, and, despite the title, a listing of not notable books based on the Dirty Harry character. Unreferenced except for distinctly unreliable sources for the future film. Note that an article about the Dirty Harry character already exists as Harry Callahan (character). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any sources, only one person has contributed to it, and upon googling no online sources independent of Wikipedia were found that could confirm its existence. Either this alleged writing system is too exotic to have any online documentation even in English, or it is a hoax. I strongly believe it is the latter. --ざくら木 17:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A collective associated with a red-linked gallery. There's no evidence of RS coverage for the collective and the article admits, "The Collective exists purely for the benefit of the member artists,". Further, there's also no evidence that the gallery is notable enough to ever have an article to which to merge this. TravellingCari 17:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 00:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page in question refers to a non-notable organization, edited by only a few people. Matt T. (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 20:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article which fails WP:V and WP:BIO about an obscure blogger, loaded with trivial puff facts - is it pertinent, for instance, that she appeared in a local production of the Vagina Monologues and that her own two speeches were interpreted in ASL for the audience? No evidence of published works, no sources proffered, only 22 G-hits dominated by blogs, Linkedin, Myspace, Wiki mirrors ... Ravenswing 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for self-promotional autobiographies. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 04:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No external references given, no assertion of notability, tags removed without addressing issues. Please prove to me this isn't an ad for a pet project, and I'll withdraw my deletion nomination. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Silly list of "cat repellers" including "lion poo" and "a big angry dog." Rob Banzai (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lion faeces can actually purchased in pellet form - it is a known repellent of cats. (See Lion Roar in google) Lilsarahp (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Best known for" because it appears to be her only role and RS coverage is limited to brief mentions in connection with her husband. Notability is not inherited. Since it survived a 2004 vFD I didn't think PROD was appropriate. TravellingCari 15:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to ThunderCats. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to ThunderCats. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Apparest vanity page by a non-notable programmer with just enough of a vague assertion of notability to avoid speedy-deletion. – iridescent 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to VH1 ILL-ustrated. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to establish any notability outside of VH1 ILL-ustrated. It is just a section of just one single episode as far as I can tell. TTN (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable forthcoming made for TV movie. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per the improvements and the added sources (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MOVIE. Yes, it has a page at imdb, but that's not notable (or a reliable source, mostly). Yes, AMG gives some very basic info, but that's not notable. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources and the article refuses to provide it either. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough references in the article to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE - has yet to make his fully professional debut, according to Soccerbase. Official site has little info on him [28], and no non-trivial secondary sources available to confer notability otherwise. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A one-man theory with, apparently, very little independent support. It's basically Perlovsky's term for something that most other people either don't discuss or use another name for, as far as I can tell. The onyl sources for the definition are papers by Perlovsky, the other sources are part of a discourse on how Perlovsky came to the idea, and are not actually supportive of the term itself. The author of the article has brought this here from elsewhere; I think it may well have a place in a "Perlovskypedia" but there is not enough evidence of usage beyond the coiner of the term, to support an entry in Wikipedia. The previous debate was closed speedily because of lack of copyright permission; a previous different version was deleted as copyright from somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO PROBLEM this article has been made part of Perlovsky bio page so it can now be deleted, thank you. Romanilin (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Social Distortion. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be enough reliable source material available for this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 13:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep/withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from Talk page
Examples of use of "J. Śniadecki":
etc.
Note that there also is a Nathan J. Sniadecki (e.g. http://faculty.washington.edu/nsniadec/pubs.html) and a Paul J. Sniadecki (e.g. http://www.nodra.com/NODS_2006_01.doc). Urhixidur (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J._%C5%9Aniadecki"
Delete. The other editors have summed up the same points I was going to make. There is nothing to suggest they were commonly or primarily known by this, so there is no need for this page. Hndis (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Dancing with the Stars. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page hasn't enough information. It is referenced, the song is just a promotional single and there's no music video for it. It should be deleted or redirected to patent album's page.Voices4ever (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was invalid nomination. The article is not nominated for deletion, but redirection. That's an editorial choice any editor can undertake. Hiding T 14:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, non-notable as notability is not inherited. This is complete original research and can be nothing else. If we don't have articles for each character, why should we have a list of all of the characters? Redirect to the main article. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pyramid_(game_show)#Home_versions. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of other game shows that do not have similar pages for home games. Additionally, this article contains unsourced speculation (as in the "Why is the end game not like the TV version?" section) and poor writing. Sottolacqua (talk) 12:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a made-up, non notable language. Wikipedia is not for things you make up one afternoon when bored. Ironholds 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Over half the !votes are for delete, parts of the article seem to violate WP:SYN, and the "popular culture" section mixes past and future indiscriminately. Will userfy if requested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of fact and fictional conspiracy theories involving crystal balls, board games, and star trek episodes. Anyway, which world is being dominated? Is this talking about Earth, Middle-Earth or the Potterverse? Highly amusing essay, but it is an essay, not an article, and it is original research.
I just hope the Daleks/Martians/Chinese Communists/Antichrist or Michael Jackson don't get me for this nomination. Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, with no prejudice against future re-creation if RS are produced. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A thick slice of spam promoting a "collaborative community database of useful biological numbers" (as opposed to thoroughly useless biological numbers?) This was originally tagged for Speedy Delete, but the admin who removed the tag even acknowledged it was full of "blatant promotional sections." Fails WP:RS, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was : Speedily deleted (and protected). Several criteria come on my mind, such as a lack of any claim of notability of this online video, re-creation of a repeatedly deleted article, and promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable film, only available via youtube/dedicated website. CultureDrone (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this fanzine is devoted to the team I support and I own many issues, I can't see any claim to notability whatsoever - only reference is to a cursory sentence on a website selling back issues, and the only other Ghits of relevance were passing mentions in articles about the club or Brian Moore himself..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Season articles should only be created for professional teams in professional leagues per WP:FOOTY and previous AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aldershot Town 1992-93. On a general note, I think some policy guidance should be created on what levels can be created for football season articles. Peanut4 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete except Warthog. I wanted to say Merge to List of vehicles..., but as that article was AfDed before, I felt that wasn't a suitable close at this point. (No prejudice towards independent creation, of course.) Warthog is kept for its refs and examples of real-world relevance.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halopedia is a wiki on Wikia devoted to the Halo science fiction video game franchise. One user seems to think that we need cut-down versions of its articles over here. I say that they are much more at home in their own wiki. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge all into a new article per above. These are non-notable aspects of the game. Even a merged article would need sources though, which doesn't seem likely, so delete preferred. Actually, sourcing for old games using independant sources seems impossible, so a merged article would still have the same problems. Hence delete.Yobmod (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. lifebaka++ 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. Local weather reporter. Fails WP:BIO, not subject of published secondary source material in WP:RS. Fails WP:CREATIVE, not regarded as an important figure nor widely cited by peers. No awards or nominations. Tassedethe (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* delete The only biography I can find of him is on CTV's site. He is cited in one news article from someplace other than CTV, but it looks like a passing mention (behind a pay wall). If someone can find a solid third-party RS, I'd be happy to change. Hobit (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Given cites below, I'm no longer sure. They are weak, but not a clear delete IMO. Hobit (talk) 03:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is a consensus that the sources provided do not meet WP:RS Spartaz Humbug! 14:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A similar article was created speedy deleted in May 2007. I originally deleted this article a second time but the creator stated that he had several independent sources to back up notability. I still believe the article fails WP:MUSIC because almost all of the links provided are for very niche type sites. Also, none of the albums the band has released have articles. They are on a minor label and haven't charted as far as I can see. I did a Google search but many were for entirely different bands called Bankrupt. There is a template that will need to be deleted if this article is. WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; besides - 1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable
It is not stated here that the reference cannot be a "niche" publication. Several of these publications are considered as reliable sources in the punk community. Ox fanzine is the No.1 punk rock magazine of Germany.
I'll create pages for the band's albums. They may be on a minor label, but their recent releases are available worldwide on iTunes and Amazon.
Please note that a band is notable if it meets ANY of the notability criteria, therefore charting is not an obligatory criterion.
Regarding your argument of Google search: please do a search on last.fm. The only band called Bankrupt that comes up with over 15,000 listeners is this one. You can also search MySpace for Bankrupt for similar results.
Strummer25 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you bothered to actually look up the sources before you call them unreliable, you could see that Ox Fanzine has published 80 issues since 1988, and is the largest punk rock fanzine in Germany. Moloko Plus is another major German punk rock fanzine with over 30 issues released. Distorted Magazine from the UK is a very unique flash-based online magazine with over 20 issues published. Est.hu is a major Hungarian entertainment portal. Southspace.de, thepunksite.com, and kvakpunkrock.cz are all punk music portals with hundreds of reviews published, and having a significant readership. Also, Left Of The Dial (USA) was originally a respected print zine, before the author decided to go on as a blog. (see: http://www.insound.com/Left_of_the_Dial/artistmain/artist/INS20548/)
Strummer25 (talk) 12:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Popular culture and fiction
Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources.
To further back up the reliabilty of my sources, you can check out Ox fanzine on the German wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ox_(Zeitschrift)
Check how many times ThePunkSite.com has already been used as a reference already. Just a few examples:
The_Falcon_(band), MxPx, Say_Anything_(band), Feeling_This, Unicornography
Examples of Left Of the Dial used as a reference:
Snatches_of_Pink, The_Hugh_Beaumont_Experience
You should understand that for punk bands punk music publications are the reliable sources. People who are interested in this music read these, they are not looking for punk bands in the Washington Post or whatever you were expecting as a reliable source.
Strummer25 (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strummer25 (talk • contribs) [reply]
The band is notable once
1. It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable
The 10 different music webzines and portals I reference are non-trivial, independent, and reliable.
People who claim they are not reliable should provide evidence for this. "I believe" and "look like" is not evidence. I've provided background information on them, you should argue why they are not reliable.
Strummer25 (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strummer25 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.answers.com/topic/dredg-1
Also used as a reference in this mainstream entertainment portal article:
http://www.livedaily.com/news/13589.html
Also listed by several record labels among review references. Just one example:
http://www.sideonedummy.com/press.php?band_name=The_Gaslight_Anthem
These should confirm the reliability of the source, as it's an example of the following WP:SPS exception:
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
Strummer25 (talk) 21:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.epitaph.com/news/news/2881
Here referenced on a mainstream entertainment portal:
http://www.iomtoday.co.im/what-where-when/Double-dose-of-punk-in.4505078.jp
This is further proof that my sources are reliable.
09:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strummer25 (talk • contribs)
"Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture". So publications devoted to subcultures such as punk rock can be used as references when it comes to determining the notability of an act belonging to a certain subculture. Since there are numerous such publications referenced in the article, it passes the criterion and should be kept. Strummer25 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The (narrow) consensus is that this film lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 11:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.eyesbeyondseeing.com/about.html http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192006/
I can't find any reliable sources that shows the movie's notability on the first 11 pages of a Google Search, Movie Review Query Engine, Rotten Tomatoes, and Google News. Schuym1 (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was not delete. Feel free to seek merges or redirects via editorial means. lifebaka++ 18:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bundled nomination. The articles are either home videos or stage shows whith no claim to notability. On top of that the articles have little or no sources and what sources they do have tend to be fan sites. Any useful information should be merged into List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos and the pages turned into redirects. Also included are, CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; a redirect may be created through the editorial process. As explained by EyeSerene, a merger would conflict with WP:V and WP:NOR, given the lack of sources (let alone reliable ones) for this content. Sandstein 11:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Star Wars media, is duplicative of that content, and can be safely deleted. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The said title corresponding the actors'/actresses' names are a hoax and were not ever verified by any means; the introductory sentence is a POV issue; the data inputs are just redundant of what's in the actors'/actresses' page are. This page, I believe, is unnecessary here in Wikipedia. Axxand (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Notability, Google yields few results. Written more as an advertisement rather than a substantial encyclopedic article. Flewis(talk) 10:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant self-promotion. Is she notable? Sgroupace (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy userfy. Recognized as non-encyclopedic content, this can be moved to user space Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not encyclopledic content. Koert van der Veer (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree. We must, however, but an end at the confusion once and for all, don't you agree with me on that? What do you suggest me to do? Last king of Frisia (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. I am a Happy Person. i raised awareness to this urgent problem that is good enough fornow. Last king of Frisia (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete --Flewis(talk) 10:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a virtually unknown forum apparently associated with a fringe politician Dennis Stevenson. It is not notable. Grahame (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability tagged for 12 months, Prodded by IP who has previously vandalised the article so needs a wider viewing Nate1481 08:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This 43 page book[36] is not notable in itself, and by a non notable author and publisher. The article claims that the book was the basis for a newer book, but as it is a book by the same author and again by a small publisher (Ragusan Press is a company specialized in Croatian Heritage books[37]. THe book is mentioned in one other independent book[38] and is not referenced in any article in Google Scholar. Fails WP:NOTE. Fram (talk) 06:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this product isn't established by the article, and given that it was released four days ago I doubt that it has achieved notability. Largo Plazo (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is the term is not yet notable TravellingCari 21:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the author has moved the page being discussed to Judaeology. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the term "Judaiology" exists. Google returns no hits. Even if it did, that spelling is unlikely because there is no reason for the "i"; it would be Judeology or Judaeology, though those words don't appear to exist either. The article gives no references that confirm the existence of this term. Given "The canon of Judaiology is open, that is to say, the source material can constantly be added to or updated by the group or individual. Material can be derived from other Jewish sources or even non-jewish sources, such as the Sufism of Islam or the Yoga of Hinduism.", which makes this sound like Wiki-Judaism, I think it's a hoax. Largo Plazo (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See discussion on articel's talk page. The restaurant business does not seem to have an article, and although there are indications that it was a large business and therefore perhaps notable, it is not clear. Additionally, the article is entitled 'Bob Farrell (motivational speaker)' indicating that his notability comes from this work and not from his ice cream parlours. If it is his role as a speaker and author that makes him notable, I can find no proof of it, on the article or using Google, or proof of any books. A Google search turned up only Farrell's own website, which is very similar in wording to this article. Hndis (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. One of your key words used on the Google search was 'PR'. These are all promotional from what I can see and as advertising are not evidence. Are any of them not advertising? Hndis (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by User:Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 07:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fan fiction/hoax. Based on Marvel Comics characters and publications, but not actually featured in any. Postdlf (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax, possible attack page. --Dragonfiend (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is fan fiction Wikipedia isn't a webhost for your fan fiction. Whispering 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL Maybe add article when and if it is released, but right now this is just a bunch of speculation. JavierMC 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is this lacks notability TravellingCari 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Non-notable company, no references that aren't from the company itself, couldn't find any additional ones either. Grsztalk 03:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable company, no encyclopedic value. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet to be released film with no assertion of notability. COI is present as well. CyberGhostface (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to McKenzie-Willamette Medical Center. MBisanz talk 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not bunching these together because they each have a different deal about them. Anyway, this is a heliport for a hospital. There is a general consensus with the Aviation WikiProject that these things still need to pass WP:RS and WP:N. This does not. If anything other than delete, merge it with the hospital article. (if it exists) Undead Warrior (talk) 03:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Google searches bring up 130 hits which 0 of them are notable. They only prove the existence of this flight park. Nothing exists about it's creation, it has not made the news, and it has not been the discussion of an online area. It is completely non-notable. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same spiel. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. A private heliport for a fire station. That has nothing notable about it what-so-ever. The FAA sites and other links are just directory listings which do not prove notability. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Brownlee Dam. There's virtually nothing to merge, although what little was there is still available under the redirect if anyone wants to do the honours. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non notable. The village doesn't even have a page. A private helipad would need something pretty extraordinary to make it notable under WP:N and WP:RS, which it doesn't. The sources given are just listing sites to confirm that the heliport does exist, but that does not pass WP:RS or WP:N. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brownlee Dam, unnotable on its own, records indicate it is owned by the power company that owns the dam. Lat/Long listed is an estimate, but it appears to be located near the dam for power company access via helicopter. It may warrant mention in the dam article, but doesn't need its own. Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no need to have stub articles for unremarkable landing facilities. Oxbow Dam is a similar situation with Oxbow Airport (Oregon) and Big Bar Heliport for Hells Canyon Dam. The dams are probably notable, but separate articles for non-notable associated facilities are not needed. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of characters on The West Wing. MBisanz talk 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character who appears in exactly one episode of The West Wing. Hnsampat (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted. How is this bar any more notable than any other bar in the Third Ward? So what if it has a brief mention in a notable local newspaper, it hasn't received significant coverage. Royalbroil 01:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product that contains a recipe, which is not encylopedic. VG ☎ 01:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. Somno (talk) 01:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future software, currently not notable. VG ☎ 01:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find sources for this project. It's a small project, so sources are scarce
Iphoneorange (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pure Reason Revolution#The Sunset Sound. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability. This was a non-notable band in that it meets no criteria under 'Bands' in WP:MUSIC. A Google search does not place this subject at the top of the search, and the second page found is this Wikipedia page. Much of the page is about the band which 'emerged' from this one (PRR)and as such simply repeats what is already on that band's page. The references used do not sustantiate the claims made about the band, and, with one exception, are very unreliable. For instance, the citation used to show 'critical acclaim' is a Velocity Recordings listing page, with nothing other than a track listing of a single release, several PRR dates and a promotional biography. I have looked over the Internet for any additional material which could show even the slightest piece of notability or achievement by this band, but can not find anything. User:Spoilydoily|Spoilydoily]] (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Contested because "notable, many ghits". Bizarrely, there are only 71 Google hits[44], which after excluding Wikipedia and its mirrors boils down to 16 distinct Google hits[45], no Google News hits, 1 Google books hit and no Google scholar hits. Since the article gives no indication of notability either, there is no reason to suppose that this order meets the WP:NOTE guideline. Fram (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:: Just added some sources, search continues. --Yopie 12:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. COI is not a reason for deletion and that aside, there are equally strong artguments on both sides. I don't think relisting again will come to any consensus either. TravellingCari 18:26, 5 October 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)) . |
Non-notable author. Article has serious conflict of interest issues as well, as the main contributor is the subject of the article. CyberGhostface (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it: Is there a conflict of interest with the author of this entry? If there is, I do not see how it makes any difference. Nothing like that is evident in the text. Every statement looks to come from verifiable sources listed and linked to. Cleo Coyle seems to be a notable author in the mystery field. The author is recognized as a bestseller by the Independent Mystery Booksellers Association and confirmed as a mystery author of note by the Library Journal. Leave the entry up by all means!— ZhaVam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment If Cleo Coyle is notable, can someone please explain why A.) The article was speedily deleted for not being notable enough in the past and B.) Cleo herself had to start her own article? I mean, if she was notable enough, wouldn't someone else have done it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No evidence of independent reliable sourcing for this film. No objection to re-creation once said information is available via reliable sources TravellingCari 18:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious WP:COI present. "Tattoos: A Scarred History" gets less than 50 hits on Google, and much of the sources available didn't look too reliable. Very few references outside of primary sources. CyberGhostface (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" If you visit the web site set www.nikjaw.com you will see some photos of the stars being interviewed. All celebrities listed were originally interviewed for the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikjaw (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 18:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better if you would not delete it. it is a family history not a product and certainly not SPAM! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Under normal circumstances, I'd relist this, but since this was a procedural nomination and the nominator doesn't appear to have a strong opinion himself, I've closed this as keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined a prod, the rationale of which was "non-notable MYSPACE musician, fails WP:MUSIC", as the google hits[51][52][53][54], suggest that he might pass WP:N. Bringing it here for your input. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:CORP. The parent company may be notable, but this seems to not be. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 18:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources for this. The link in the article doesn't work. See past discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fast Food Video (no links work there also) Schuym1 (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is non-notable journalist. It might be COI LegoKontribsTalkM 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The songs only claim to notability is that it was played at the funeral of John F. Kennedy. Also the page has been orphaned since July 2006. Dzhugashvili (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus appears to be that while the article is faulty, the organization is notable. Problems can be solved with editing, not deletion. TravellingCari 18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to have some sort of notability, but lacks any reliable, independent sources for verification of article content Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Etobicoke#Education. There was not going to be any other outcome, I can't remember the last time there was. Therefore, re-directed. Content is there under the merge if anyone wants to merge anything. TravellingCari 15:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary school with no claim in article of meeting WP:N. While normally I'd think a school 50+ years old would be notable, there's just 32 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability, and zero gnews hits. I had recommended a merge to the district article several months ago but another editor removed the tag and suggested AfD. So here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Chick Bowen 16:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I declined this speedy deletion request from an IP address, who indicated in an edit summary (of deletion ofsources and content) that " this article is extremely inflamatory, and is hurting families involved. Please leave like this or remove entirely. Thank you.". This article is not a speedy candidate but I would like others opinions about its notability. It is not clear to me that this terrible murder is any more notable than the many, many others that occur on a yearly basis. Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Song hasn't charted yet. Album is up for afd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 18:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted at AfD last year - now it's back again with the exactly the same issues as last time. A Google search for "Hayden Panettiere" "Falling Down" album returns only a very small number of blog, gossip/fansite-related and WP-sourced hits. Unable to find any official confirmation of a title or even the existence of this album and the list of producers and genres appear to have been pulled from thin air (again!). Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums, etc. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]