| < October 24 | October 26 > |
|---|
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No sources beyond "ghost riders" own web site and no obvious notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this article had already been deleted? I don't think it clearly displays notability. Boleyn2 (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Didn't seem to fit a speedy delete. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 23:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be no notability for this cookie. The references provided are a link to the company's site which provides nutrition information and product description of the cookie. The other reference is to an article that never mentions the cookie at all. Please also see discussion at Talk:Vienna fingers#Notability. A merge was suggested there, but I'm not sure what would be merged to the company's article other than a short product description of the cookie being vanilla wafer and filling. Metros (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing from the discussion page for Vienna fingers, where I came in as a third-opinion. The best argument I thought fudgecicle had was that you can get 4730 Google hits for "Vienna fingers" as a phrase (1.4m as separate words, but mostly hits such as "picking up Vienna sausages with your fingers"). Most of them are just utilitarian commercial links, a few of them were "reviews," and none of the ones I saw showed cultural significance. By contrast "ladyfingers" gets almost 300,000 hits, most of which showed cultural significance IMO - books, history, recipes, being used as a name, etc. Existing, being sold, and apparently being enjoyed by some aren't criteria for notability.
Support deletion. arimareiji (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I truly meant above is that Kelloggs, the mother company of S.B., is a fortune 500. Now, if Neil Simon mentioned Vienna Fingers in his Odd Couple script, that makes Vienna fingers culturally important. The Odd Couple was a very famous movie (or TV show, or whatever), though I don't know what it's about. One of the discussors mentioned that many of the links were ads; well, that also makes it important. If a product has large scale advertising like that, that means it is important. Furthermore, the fact that vienna fingers are mentioned in several diet books means that they are important to fat people because they are tasty and healthier than other things. This should make everyone sure that these references provide notability. I will have to put up some more info about the Odd Couple thing on the Wikipedia Article.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
TV shows are part of pop culture. If vienna fingers are in a TV show, especially a famous one, that means that they are a part of the culture. Therefore, vienna fingers are definitevly part of American culture. Q.E.D.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
Exactly Sam; that would make you much more culturally important.Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle See? It does mean cultural notability! Arimaj-whatever agrees! Now, the only thing is that no one has come up with a definition for "cultural notability". Every example I have given is evidently not "cultural notability". If someone could actually give a definition for once, I'm sure finding a good reason would be easy. Until then, no one should really have any right to say what is or isn't "cultural notability".Ask the fudgecicle (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ask the fudgecicle[reply]
The result was G11 by Jac16888, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has deleted Speedy G11 templates twice without doing anything to change the article. Blatant advertising for this website. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, only external links to myspace, WP:BIO and WP:NB cf38talk 23:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to pass WP:BIO as an actress or entertainer. Cites are largely to youtube and other similarly unreliable sources, Otto4711 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, but asserts notability. Is one of the premium websites in its field, not a speedy. Porollostracuos (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, redirect to The Notorious B.I.G. made. --Tone 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only info on the artist was from the usual webcrawling sites, allmusic and yahoo music. Also this: [5] seems to indicate that this person is in fact Christopher Wallace aka The Notorious B.I.G., and the source (Billboard) is a lot more credible than a crawler page.Terrillja (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete under CSD G10 as attack page. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems to meet the deletion requirements for "vandalism", specifically as it includes "pages which exist only to disparage their subject". Though it's probably not worth getting into the merits of the particular accusations the page makes (given that regardless of their veracity it still exists only to disparage the subject) it at least bears mentioning that the charge that Dr. Hodari faced charges for illegal disposal of aborted fetuses turned out to be a hoax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporquemada (talk • contribs)
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an essay, and another article on the subject (Comma Johanneum) already exists. If anything, content worthy of inclusion in the existing article should be merged and the subject of this debate deleted or redirected. Also, all implausible redirects associated with the subject of this debate (including Johannine Comma (2), 1 John 5:7 (2), and 1 John 5:7a should be deleted. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve] 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this article takes a complaint a few newspapers (and blogs) ran with about the Axe body spray ad campaign, and turns it into an article. It's not a totally non-notable concept, but it's hardly some raging controversy. It's a consumer complaint, a media critique... it's not a movement, and the complaints have largely come and gone, as far as I can tell. It's notable enough to mention in Axe (Lynx) and maybe Unilever (and it is mentioned in both), but to have a standalone article is basically to claim a few newspaper articles here and there make a mere product complaint notable. Rividian (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy was identified by wired as a spammer in 2003. But there's really no evidence of notability outside that crime story. He generates 100 googles [7] which is tiny for an internet story, and there's nothing on Google news. WP:BLP issues are here - we've one source and no real significance. Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 21:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(prior AfD) Other than brief discussion here and here, article's subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The other sources used in the article are to non-WP:RS, non-independent sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article. There is also a conflict of interest issue here with the major contributor to the article, see [8] and COIN. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs)
Barely notable, "one event", sensational BLP. Even the title is probably a BLP violation. MBisanz talk 20:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD, non-notable book, no sources beyond Amazon.com Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it has three reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This could be a legitimate activity, but it lacks any real context context or any sources proving that this concept does actually exist, or why its notable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 19:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, advertising spam, original research, circular references... DELETE! Proxy User (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a hoax article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax. The reference cited is, perhaps deliberately, confused: a mixture of the titles of two Nigel West books: MI6, British Secret Intelligence Operations 1909-45 and MI5: British Security Service Operations 1909-45. An operation like this would come under MI5, but I have checked both books, and neither of them mentions onion rationing, "Operation Omelette" or "Octolitehydroxide". Nor does J.C.Masterman's The Double Cross System, which is a history of deception operations like this. Google finds nothing relevant for Operation Omelette or for onion rationing. Finally, according to Austerity in Britain, the book cited as a source for Rationing in the United Kingdom, onions were not in fact rationed. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 21:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
website fails criteria at WP:WEB, article makes no assertions of why it is notable and a thorough search reveals no coverage in reliable sources. Appears to be the personal project of a small non-notable author.neon white talk 18:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highly likely to be a hoax, and if not, then it's certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Music of the Czech Republic. MBisanz talk 03:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dubious topic and is certainly nothing but original research. Woland (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author:I have already added the sources I used so it should be all right. It is a description of the development of music in the Bohemina Forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macane (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 20:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable song. Fails WP:MUSIC. Contested redirect. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the movie will be made is not yet finalized KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 16:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Non-admin closure. DARTH PANDAduel 20:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw15 days since notability notice. No change and no references. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep(non-admin closure) the article is now well cited. Icewedge (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15 days since I posted a notability notice. No change and no additional references. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable journalist. The article cites no sources. Bryan Hopping T 15:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, disruption. -- lucasbfr talk 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is garbage. A bit like the liquidity in these instruments at present Sockpuppet II (talk) 14:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
University sports teams with no reliable and independent sources referenced or likely to be available. British university sport is very unlike US college sport, in that with a very few exceptions British university sports teams are not followed by many - if any - outside (and even normally within) their respective universities. Pfainuk talk 14:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
i think this is rediculous, the sites should gefinately stay on american football is not followed as much in britain as it is in america but it is still a ever expanding sport. and being a player myself i think its insulting to be told we are not followed by our university. we have more fans at a american football game than any other team in the university. plus every year the american football makes a considerabe amount of money for various charities and is always top of that list.
these sites should not be closed down just because the sport is not understood by certain people, i think its rediculous that this ncan be even thought of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.240.40 (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk Pfainuk talk 16:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/UCH_Sharks" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.70.123 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot say there is not enough sources for this just becase they aren't mentioned on the articles which still need work - 90% of the articles on Wikipedia seem to need more work. Let's get some of these sources onto the pages and add records, team members etc so people can come on to here and find information about these teams rather than a generic page with little information or a page so full of information it's large and unreadable (I don't think we can have even a basic summary, results and roster for over 30 teams on one single page and keep the size down to within Wikipedia standards).JamesCollins (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, contains no references. contains no third party evidence of notability Michellecrisp (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 21:54, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Doing songs for bestselling games and award winning games does not show notability because notability is not inherited. Schuym1 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted G7 Author request. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author/web designer. Lots of self-published books and sources cited that are run by the author himself, so some concern over whether he is in fact notable. Oscarthecat (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely non-notable television program. Apparently it's being aired at a middle school in Nevada? However, I find no mention of it anywhere through Google. And even if we did, I'm not sure it'd meet the notable guidelines. WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, no sources cited, fails Google News test with only one minor result, no evidence that HMMA is a major organization. Possible vanity page. Decided not to speedy since he does assert notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability, no sourcing. --Nate1481 11:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted and userfied per author's request. Maybe it will be improved and reposted, then it can go through procedure again if needed. --Tone 07:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, the reason was No notability established whatsoever. Just happened to be in charge of a unit when it received an aircraft. Procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 09:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete and salt G3 Vandalism . Mattinbgn\talk 10:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy contested. Investigation found recreation of previous article. In the meantime editor copied the page on Peter Hans Kolvenbach substituting Tom Shaddock throughout. Recommend delete with salt. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. I can find no reference to Cowlesy + Volleyball. The article seems very similar in tone to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lunchtime Basketball Association article. I would have suggested speedy, but would prefer to assume good faith and ask for consensus. The names of the team's players are almost certainly nom de guerres which causes further suspicion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I'm sure why this is here- because the CVL is a legitimate league and just because it doesn't have any facts about it on the internet, which is you lots only source of information, doesn't mean it is not real. The league is brilliant and I often go to watch it to see the likes of up and coming talents such as Ali Legmeister and Cowlesy Stojakovic. This wikipedia page may make more people aware of the league and increase volleyballs popularity in the state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim'spirates (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G3 Complete and utter bollocks. Mattinbgn\talk 09:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious case of complete bollocks, this seems to be a fictional vanity article for a teenager. Among the many absurdities, it claims that she has had 31 number ones in the States and 45 in Britain (nobody has ever had this many; not Elvis Presley, not the Beatles, and certainly not a seventeen year old girl), and that she recorded famous singles like Can't Get You out of My Head (I think you'll find that was someone else). Blatant enough to qualify as vandalism I think, but I'm bored edit warring with the creator and an IP over the speedy tag so bringing it here for hopefully a quick snowball delete. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 08:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted before official closing. --Tone 11:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, seems like made up giberish Omegacommand (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G11) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 13:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatent Ad Omegacommand (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The discussion about merging or stubbifying can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists entirely of in-universe cruft, and does not contain any factual information or sources. If deletion is out of the question, it should be merged into the main SW characters page. sixtynine • speak, I say • 06:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E - she won Miss Gay America (which redirects) in 2000. No gBooks hits, gNews hits, and most (if not all) gWeb hits are self promotional. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to existing article The John Fisher School as boldly done by Eastmain. TerriersFan (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party references, notability not established. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was db-spam. Schuym1 (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional tone, notability not established, no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Notability demonstrated, unanimous keep (6 voters). Non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created by an apparent COI SPA; promotional tone. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also bundling (same author, same topic):
--KurtRaschke (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many articles about nonprofit organizations. A lot aren't even notable. Just keep it. There's no problem.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-like, no third-party sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created by a COI SPA; no reliable sources, notability not established, and a whole bunch of spam links at the bottom. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Christian Brothers High School (Sacramento, California). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established, no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a cookbook; no references. KurtRaschke (talk) 03:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in this article really explains why this person is notable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE DELETE DELETE! PLEASE DELETE! This is Nicholas Chavez. Please delete this godforsaken article, it is a constant pain having to deal with the associated libelous vandalism. Please, please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.69.221 (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Not worth keeping given the trouble it has caused the subject. John Reaves 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Since I suspect that there will be those in both camps who will be curious as to my reasoning in this closing, I will try to explain. First, I did not consider the three articles that were withdrawn from the AfD - Canada, Japan and Australia Iceland; those articles are closed as Keep. The nomination primarily addressed a lack of sources showing notability for each of the remaining articles to exist in stand-alone form. This complaint was not rebutted by those arguing for the articles to be kept. Instead, the underlying thread of the discussion seemed to be that there was a certain inherent notability to relations between nations. The keep !votes also frequently pointed to the likelihood that the articles would be improved and expanded as sources appeared. I felt that on the whole, the failure of the articles to demonstrate notability through reliable sources indicated that they failed our inclusion guideline to exist as separate articles. The fact that sources were able to be found for the three articles that were withdrawn from the discussion further illustrated that this was not a case in which it was impossible to show notability, but rather one in which there was simply a lack of sources to do so. The reason for merger instead of deletion is that our deletion policy indicates that when an article fails to demonstrate notability, but there is verifiable information, the preference is to merge. The delete !votes as a group did not make a case against merger, but against the articles' separate existence. In the end, it may be little difference as the essential content of these articles appears to be present at the target, however, I will attempt to add to it any significant missing content from the articles being merged. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles being nominated describe trivial relations which are otherwise covered at International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo. Deep searches done on the articles being nominated in this batch have not yielded any materials which would expand on these "relations" beyond the fact that non-Kosovo country recognises Kosovo. There is no evidence of notable relations between Kosovo and the countries listed in terms of political, economic, cultural, trade or transport ties. I have not touched some of the Kosovo-European country relations articles as each of those will need to be looked at on a case by case basis. Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 03:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons presented above:
:Canada–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Iceland–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
:Japan–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It is no violation. Please stop your denial of the truth.Max Mux (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent decisions in virtually the same cases:
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 03:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect to Kinnikuman_anime-original_characters#Baracky.. chaser - t 03:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. A mention in one news transcript about the Baracky song is not enough information and there appears to be little to no other reliable source information. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Also, there is nothing to disambiguate. What it comes down to is that there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 03:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Rickrolling. History retained if an editor wants to adapt it into the Rickrolling article, but would have to use approrpriate sources to do so. Cirt (talk) 21:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. A three sentence mention in one news article is not enough information and there appears to be little to no other reliable source information. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL What it comes down to is that there does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. -- Suntag ☼ 02:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. NAC. This is an WP:IAR close. Schuym1 (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a crystal ball. KurtRaschke (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalhammer. No one knows much about the third studio album. It might not even be released in 2009. You know how these albums are.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. — neuro(talk) 19:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two USS John S. McCain ships and they are hat noted in each of the two article on those ships. Since the two article already link directly to the other ship article, USS John S. McCain is not needed. -- Suntag ☼ 02:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
School is not notable: commercial institution advertised in an article without any coverage. I have not been able to find relevant and independent coverage of the subject; the links on the organization's website are to advertisements, very brief notifications of their opening, and to 'press TV' programs. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COI, doesn't seem to be notable. Sources don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. I'll do a history merge, and everyone will remember to use the "Move" function or WP:RM so we don't have to mess with this stuff, right? :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no need for this to be here, as there is already SEAT Cupra Championship. Cs-wolves (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only nontrivial coverage about this educational fair is from The Tribune. That doesn't confer enough notability to erase the strong stench of promotional editing and sockpuppetry from the page's author (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sidjain111). Blueboy96 02:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate in a congressional election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy96 02:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of those cases where the first AFD just got it completely wrong. A list of 100 items, presented in a defined order, is a copyright violation of the list. This article basically matches http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/G/greatest/cartoons/results.html in its entirety —Kww(talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep.. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article does not establish that the subject is notable enough to require its own article, as opposed to content in Sin or Eastern Orthodox Church. Mrhsj (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Only a single album released. Most notable award won by the band is from the Boston Music Awards. Millbrooky (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whoops, I didn't even notice this article had previously been nominated at AfD as I came to this article via Avatar blue and noticed the duplication of the articles. --Millbrooky (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating Krrish Returns for deletion because it fails WP:NFF.There is no single source available on Internet to say 'Krrish Returns' production has started.i've heard somewhere, script of the film is ready.but i'm not sure about film production has begun.official website is dubious. WinningSpecialist (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Consensus is overwhelming, and there is no policy reason (eg BLP) not to follow that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say arbitrary listing, but as it has... something... I can not. It does however appear to be quite possibly the most blatant case of this quote: even if it is sourced, and it is factual, does not necessarily mean it requires an article on wikipedia –– Lid(Talk) 00:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. That's all. Keep--this is a difference of day and night; we now have an article, not a list. Kudos. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
*Delete Honestly, it seems like a bunch of original research and unnecessary information to me. Even though it's referenced. It looks like it really would belong better on a blog or a website for these types of facts and not on Wiki. Lady★Galaxy 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge It is interesting to see that Lefties only started with Hoover and have in recent times become the norm rather than the exception. A reference to a psych/poli-sci article discussing this issue (if one exists) might then merit keeping this info here. Perhaps this should be a list of JUST lefties and ambis in either the U.S. Presidents article or Handedness itself. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 09:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
: Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Highly trivial... and as for the merge vote, a.) where would we be merging to, and b.) your argument that it should be kept/merged just because it is 'interesting' is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. — neuro(talk) 13:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This topic has been documented by many people over many years, and the possible reasons for the unusual preponderance of left-handedness have been discussed by psychologists. There's ample scope for an article to be written on the subject that is far more than a bare list that intersects two sets. And I say that before having even read the expanded article. ☺ Any problems with this article are matters of expansion and cleanup, not deletion. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus is clear, and there's no reason to keep this hanging around.chaser - t 03:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BLP1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.". Besides lying to the press and his congregation about having cancer, and then confessing to a pornography addiction, he is entirely non-notable. Tan | 39 00:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur sportsperson, fails WP:BIO. GNUSMAS : TALK 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Protonk (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable, straight to video cartoon; I couldn't find anything like substantial coverage on Google. Prod removed without comment. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use to own a copy. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If I use my memory I can put the plot in. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Its made by a minor animation studio so of course there is not much information. User:Jet556 —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (Geographic locations) Option Two and/or needs very drastic improvements per Option Three. In addition, sources are not cited and I cannot find the place through Google at all. Finally, at least half of the article is in a different language. DARTH PANDAtalk 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]