The result was speedy delete as obvious hoax. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an article about a fictional character and includes the same paragraph repeated over and over again. Another editor tagged it with db-bio which technically doesn't apply. (tag removed by creator) Bringing it here because it doesn't seem to fit any speedy category. Bollocks or "made up in school one day" would seem to apply. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdraw. MQS convinced me again. Schuym1 (talk) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete nom is right, not inherited, similar to below. Notability requires 3rd party sources, just like any other article and most "sources" I find are blogs and church newsletters. Maybe someday, but not notable at this time. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on use of the criterion n. The very meaning of the concept for a company is prominence in the profession, which can be shown in various ways.. Producing the films is the evidence for the notability, and the reason for it. Without them, a production company would not be notable. It's not material in newspapers about the company that makes it notable, though that is one kind of evidence for it. But the films show it adequately by themselves. It's easier generally to show notability for the films, but the true notability is the people who make them. If a production company can be notable at all, its by making notable films. Proper use of not inherited would b to say that bcause the company makes some notale films, everything it makes is not notable. DGG (talk)
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable source that I can find is the official site.Schuym1 (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Directory listings do not constitute notability. One helipad owned by a company is not a notable helipad. Delete Undead Warrior (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Fails the most relevant criterion, that is, WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Withdrawn in view of state award (see below). WWGB (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng.Mattinbgn\talk 21:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is a set of stores... That you might have a selection on shoes or washing machimes does not give notability. Yikes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have struck my delete per improvements done by User:Bilby Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS, WP:SNOW. Rodhullandemu 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax. There's no source, there's no proof, there are no search results in Google, etc. Emma has made no mention of releasing a greatest hits album. So it should be deleted. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BJTalk 03:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Australian shopping centre/mall. No reliable sources, independent of the subject and each other, have been provided. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a SPA, Masteryacine5 (talk · contribs), who has created a series of articles on shopping centres that are claimed to be owned by a person named Yu Feng Mattinbgn\talk 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have withdrawn my delete per sourcing done by User:Bilby. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual, very few verifiable sources. Despite last keep result, no new sources to establish notability have emerged. Per WP:BLP, people who are notable only for one thing (so what, he's president of a company) should not have a biographical article. -Nard 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable Albanian given name, with no notable people of that name. A Facebook search yielded only 2 people (out of like 70,000,000). Tavix (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball Keep. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable local church. No verification in article. Possible spam. --Purple hills (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article has been updated with NRHP infobox since deletion nomination. Andrew Jameson (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn First mall in California is good enough for me. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a particularly large mall, no substantial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:CRYSTAL and the Hammer law. Most sources are interviews. No name to the album, no release date, no information on tracks. There is really nothing that would transfer to the article on the album once it is released. GtstrickyTalk or C 21:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard as none of the sources in the article establish the notability of the character, but instead focus on the game itself or on the marketing efforts for the game. Notability—separate from the game—of the character has not been established. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, newly created video game character, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL - game not yet published. ukexpat (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google it and gimme 20 minutes to source it.--Blinkstale (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnotable song because it didn't chart anywhere and isn't a single. See WP:MUSIC for more information. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
*Redirect: to Jorge Ben. A non-notable song. Schuym1 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Philippe 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting deletion of this page because the band is not notable per WP:MUSIC. In addition, the page reads like an advertisement and there are no secondary sources for the band on its article page. Tavix (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication given for notability. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, lack of references to reliable sources; article created by former employee. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a collection of ideas that have received very little in the way of independent, third-party acknowledgment required by our various notability and fringe theory guidelines. Sure, people published these weird ideas, but if nobody takes notice of them, then they don't belong in Wikipedia since there is no chance we can reliable source verifiable statements about the ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax - current source very weak. Looks like the "product" is from a novel. (John User:Jwy talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article with haste. Cinnamon is definitely a historical curative... cinnamilk is a literary device. I struck my earlier postion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. J.delanoygabsadds 01:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate discography with an emphasis on a particular genre. A complete discography would be of unmanageable size. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Underdog episodes. MBisanz talk 08:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This episode does not assert notability of any kind, and it fails WP:EPISODE. It is just a single plot summary that does not need to exist. TTN (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TTN (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax entry about a pop group. Claims to have had no.1 hits called "hidden" and "Touch", but Google doesn't know about them. Claims to have won Best R&B Track at the 2008 Teen Choice Awards, but that was Chris Brown, "Forever". Claims to have been nominated for Best Pop Video at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards, but the WP article doesn't agree. The first reference says "Sorry, the blog you were looking for does not exist. However, the name popinternationalj4 is available to register!" I checked two more references at random, which didn't mention J-4. I didn't waste any time on more checks. The author's record does not inspire confidence. Delete as blatant hoax. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable website. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely WP:HOAX article, or at least not verifiable. Article states that the subject founded the "Mayfair academy of Dance". This exact term yields a mere three posts on blogs when checked. If this would be the Mayfair academy (which is also an performing art college) the information included is not correct according to the academy website. Searches for the name of the article subject end up finding a 16th century poet. Any searches including additional search terms such as "Dance" come up blank or just discuss the same poet. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - requested by creator. ... discospinster talk 00:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen-year-old local musician who doesn't meet notability standards nor any has multiple, non-trivial reliable sources describing him. Two local events-listings notices do NOT count. CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are two newspaper references and a reference to a Harley-Davidson page (which happens to be a very trusted franchise, and a legitimate source) not substantial sources? And how do you know he is just a "local musician" just because he has no "major" newspaper or press articles. The fact is he is known as far across the world as Italy and Greece. Just Google his name and if you look, he practically owns the first page. Just because any of you have never heard of him doesn't mean he's not a "notable musician" or just a "local musician". For example, I know dozens of people that haven't even heard of Paramore or Love Equals Death. Does that mean they are not notable? In fact, go look at Love Equals Death's article. Their sources are just a bunch of irrelevant links to pages about them and their members. "The Rock N Roll Palace Of Love" is a comic strip. And besides that, they have ONE link to a newspaper. ONE!!! Dominic Luciano has TWO to a newspaper. So let us just delete their Wikipedia article, OK?
Also, I have checked out all the other references and external links for Dominic Luciano, and all of them are his personal pages, and were edited all by Dominic Luciano. How are those NOT substantial sources when all the information is "straight from the horses mouth"? This is ridiculous because someday someone is going to post this article again. So are you all just going to keep deleting it just because he doesn't have 5 manufactured studio albums? How about instead of flagging it for deletion, you go and read about his and check out what the sources say. Do any of you know what Cerebral Palsy or Neurofibromatosis is? Anyone who is able to overcome even one of those drawbacks and make as beautiful music as Dominic does is a NOTABLE PERSON. Not just a notable musician, A NOTABLE PERSON. I went to his MySpace page and listened and was in awe.
Like I said, this is ridiculous! Please remove the deletion tag at once, or I will risk being banned by removing it myself because the world deserves to know about someone like Dominic; Someone who has triumphed to be a very talented and gifted person. Have a heart guys.
Thanks.
--Rrindie126 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC) — Rrindie126 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am the creator of this article. I know Dominic Luciano personally. All the facts on the article are 100% true. He is not at all just a local musician. The fact that rrinde126 stated above that he is known halfway across the world is true. It was a post on one of his first blogs when he first started selling his music. And I also checked out the Love Equals Death page that rrindie126 was also talking about, and it is true that their sources are worse than that of Dominic Luciano. I am with rrindie126 on the fight against the deletion of this article, and if it's sources you want, I will find them.
Don't delete this article, or I swear I will be the one to continue reposting this article until Wikipedia gives up on deleting it. The world wants and needs to know about him. And go ahead and ban me too. I'll just keep coming back.
You're going to have to leave this article someday.
Thanks for not deleting.
P.S. And If all you can do to get rid of his article is call him a Pokemon, you guys really do suck.
--Quixotic92 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC) — Quixotic92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This material was copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Dominic Luciano by User:Alexius08. I've put it in a pink box, to make that clearer. AndyJones (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to point out an important note:
Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary.
According to this, this article should be kept due to the fact it is "unusual enough to deserve attention". I'd also like to add this quote as well: "Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." . Therefore this article should not be deleted'
I consider this case closed.--71.34.239.151 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another supporting topic/statement:
A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
Seems he's met 3 of these criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixotic92 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see not the slightest sign that he's met any one of them.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I will show you how:
If that's not proof enough then you're obviously a blind fool. So look again and while you're at it remove the deletion banner, or I will do it myself.
Gracias.--Quixotic92 (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those charts would be OurStage where some of the best musicians in the world compete. Check 'em out. Get educated.
That fact he is the best can be proved in several ways. The unfortunate thing is a moron like you would never believe any of them.
And yes. The U of O does give out major music awards because they host major music events and competitions. I myself have been a part of a few of them in fact.
I've had enough of this. I am requesting to have this case reviewed by several other non-biased administrators since you're too moronic to realize that these are legitimate reasons for inclusion. Have you even read the article?
And who the hell made you an administrator?
And go ahead and ban me for saying that and go ahead and delete my article. All I've ever heard all through high school and college is Wikipedia was full of idiots, and I guess they're right. I bet you're just some snot-faced nerd sitting behind a computer and you don't want to include this article because you're jealous because of the accomplishments this fine young man has had, and the struggles he has had to overcome. So you know what? Bring it on because this article is gonna make it on here someday.
--Quixotic92 (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'OurStage'? Yes, a music chart so prestigious that there isn't even a Wikipedia article on it. Also, you ARE aware of the difference between 'subjective' and 'objective', and that 'one of the best' falls squarely under the former? Finally, perhaps you could point to some evidence that the University of Oregon 'give out major music awards', while you at it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzgirl-Proof? I WAS THERE TO SEE HIM GET THE AWARD, Annual University of Oregon/ Lane Jazz Festival, if you want straight evidence because you probably think I'm lying, here's some proof! This is an actual article from our newpaper in Medford: <http://archive.mailtribune.com/archive/2007/0216/life/stories/rod_and_custom_show.htm>, read that. Dominic Luciano is an incredible musician and friend. I was a senior at North when he won the award. I was also at the motorcycle thing. I am disgusted on how you argue your case, if you are indeed an adminisitrator, then you should treat this with more respect, even if our responses aren't so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmzgirl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC) — Kmzgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Just because you salt it doesn't mean I'm not gonna find a way to repost this, or someone else isn't going to repost it. This is a credible article. It is not spam. Please reconsider.
--Quixotic92 (talk) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC) — Quixotic92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And by the way, Kmzgirl is correct. If you go to the article she posted a link to, which happens to be a resource on the article, there is a paragraph about him winning the title or award or whatever you want to call it. And since all you administrators don't go check this stuff out, I will post that paragraph here for your convenience:
A freshman at North Medford High School, Dominic recently won best solo in the state at the Oregon Jazz Festival in Eugene playing the piano. He also builds and programs computers.
Now that proves the point that he has won a major award. So therefore I have won, I have proved my point, and I consider this discussion closed and the article saved. You've heard it from TWO people now!
And by the way CalendarWatcher, does everything have to have a Wikipedia article to be important? Does everything have to be correct and worthy in you eyes to be important? I feel bad for you if that is the case.
And quit being sarcastic with me because that's not the way a leader should act. I don't see the President of the United States going around being sarcastic with someone just because what they stated wasn't in the Constitution.
--Quixotic92 (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me where there is conflict of interest and I will believe you. Tell me how this is not an interesting topic. May I point out that on the WP:BIO page it says an article must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary." That article is 100% neutral, and interesting with two supporting newspaper articles. I bet you if you left it up you would get hundreds of hits a day. Why do you guys keep making stuff up just to get this article deleted? First it was a Pokemon, then it was "OurStage has no Wikipedia page", now it's a conflict of interest on a completely neutral article that provides two reliable newspaper support articles. is the newspaper now a "trivial" source as well?
Grow up.
--Quixotic92 (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do we appear to come off as close friends? Just cause I'm able to obtain permissions? Just cause I have a few pictures of my own of him? By the way, that doesn't make my article is biased in one way or another. And I in no way have any relations to kmzgirl, and I can prove that. And the IP address listed as a signature was me, I just forgot to sign in. That's not a crime, it was just a simple mistake and I apologize for that. And the reason I have this tone is I'm tired of all of the admins just pushing me around with lame excuses. I'm sure you can understand that. Only one of the posts on this page by an admin has been kind and courteous towards me and my beliefs.--Quixotic92 (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I have absolutely no relation to kmzgirl at all. And the reason I was doing that is because someone kept taking all the pictures off the page, and plus I'm sick of this discussion because the general consensus has obviously been reached. You're all against me. I mean, just look at all the times admins have said delete or speedy delete. So why is this discussion being perpetuated? Is this some kind of conspiracy or something to get me perma-banned? All I'm asking is someone please make the decision and quit this madness, because I don't even care anymore. I don't even care if you ban me alongside the article. I've lost so much respect for Wikipedia through this that I don't even want to come back. I used to be the guy arguing Wikipedia's case in school. Obviously my legitimate thoughts and opinions are not valued, so why should I contribute? Why is what I say important to all of you anyways? I thought they were supposed to be important because the first thing I see on the Wikipedia homepage is "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Well obviously not! So you know what? I'm gonna help you all out. Just forget about all this and just delete it and we can all go about our merry little ways. But just remember that someday he is going to be "notable" by your definition, and he will eventually make it on here. But if he knew what was going on here, I don't even think he would want to be on here.
Happy lives.--Quixotic92 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the deletion. I believe you have all been unfair to quixotic92 as well as Dominic Luciano.--Rrindie126 (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok perfect. I know have proof that you all have teamed up on quixotic92 using a strategy called "groupthink", not the so-called consensus you're supposed to reach. I also have proof that Wikipedia is a corrupt system and unless you're an insider, anything you do is shot down. So basically just because quixotic92, kmzgirl, and I are not insiders, even if our words are legitimate, they mean absolutely nothing.
Shall I post a link to my facts? Also I have noticed new sources have been posted on the article. They are non-trivial as well.
But you know what? I'll post the link so it doesn't look like I'm bluffing.
So basically this this blog is saying that unless you're a Wikipedia insider, you have no say and you are meaningless and anything you do will be deleted or removed because of the prior.
Sounds a little bit like whats going on here. Now if the article is actually correct, I'm sure I will be banned and this entire fiasco will be formatted off your servers to protect all of you.
Or maybe the article we are debating over will have the deletion notice removed and this discussion will end.--Rrindie126 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to just say I do not, even though you doubtless may not believe so, am in no connection to any of these other protesters, only connection we share is we have the same cause, not collaboration, but merely defending our friend. That is the only reason I did this. Delete me as you must, little do I care. I apologize for any rude statements which were not meant to be so, but please at least read the article I posted. That is all I ask. Please. I won't say anymore after this, and though if you find it false, I will be saddened, but what's done is done, and Wikipedia has seen the last of me for good. Sorry Dominic I tried. And sad story or no, I am truly sorry Dominic. =( I still support you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmzgirl (talk • contribs) 23:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Satisfies notability requirements as currently written. - Philippe 03:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I first put up a notice for deleting this article it was immediately removed with the summary stating that "Former mayor = notable". This is not necessarily an absolute statement, at least as it pertains to Wikipedia:Notability (people). The applicable section would be under Politicians with the two salient qualifying criteria being:
Both of these require "significant coverage" of the subject in order to be met. To date, Tim has not received what could deemed to be this level of coverage in either the press or from reliable independent sources. I'm sure he's a good guy, just not notable. Ohioisthekey (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)— Ohioisthekey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web meme. No reliable sources provided, none found. Previously deleted (as a redirect), then restored without any apparent discussion. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mass in special relativity. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a redundant collection of Mass in special relativity, General relativity etc.. No references were included and no Wikipedia articles refer to it. D.H (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per A7. NAC. Tavix (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Not notable. Iam not sure what the other rules are. It certainly fails many policies SkyWalker (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in a fully professional league (the prod was removed because "he plays in a semi-pro league", which obviously means he fails to meet the criteria). пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No consensus among editors where to redirect to, so that could be discussed at Talk:Underdog (TV series). Cirt (talk) 04:09, 8 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 content. TTN (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Underdog characters. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:08, 8 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) 14:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:11, 8 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) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Underdog characters. It is true that AfD is not cleanup, but the fact remains that there are no verifiable secondary sources present, and it says on that itty-bitty template on top of the article that "Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." MuZemike (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Recess: School's Out. Cirt (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of its film. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:32, 8 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) 14:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:31, 8 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) 14:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. History retained if editors want to add stuff into Buzz Lightyear of Star Command. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 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) 14:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character article 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) 14:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a suburban soccer referees association, which is clearly not notable. Grahame (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:PROF particularly third party evidence of significant contribution to field Michellecrisp (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is lacking sources and hasn't been worked on for a long time. For months i've been trying to start the discussion about it,but nobody is responding on the talkpage.The article should be fixed or deleted.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 04:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so interesting that people don't even come to vote :)))--(GriffinSB) (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This "news" wasn't given any importance untill Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen used it in their politicised speeches during the Hague ICTY trials.There weren't any deaths,but personal property was destroyed. It didn't lead to tensions çause the tension was already caused by the killings of Croatian policemen by terrorist rebel Serbs.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Noone is working on it.Half of the "refferences"/external links don't work at all.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 8 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)) . |
This article is about a survey published as book, but it does not assert the notability of the book/survey using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article on the reassurance of an Internet friend that it is genuine. I actually tried to look up his references, and they are all bogus. I think this was some type of joke, and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhatJew (talk • contribs) 2008/10/03 05:35:14
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Fails BIO ATHLETE and NOTABILITY. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT#IINFO. Jennavecia (Talk) 14:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC, lacks third party sources to prove notability Michellecrisp (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written about me, it is innaccurate and I don't think I meet the criteria for being notable enough, especially seen as seasoned reporters who work for my company aren't on Wikipedia, when I am, after a year of regional reporting. Seems to be an inconsistency, please delete it RobHerrick (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xclamation point 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable fictional character that fails WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:PLOT. Only "source" is a book about the series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Has been tagged for notability and other issues since February with no improvement at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Looks like this Stain is not coming out. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is partially nonsense. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedied as a hoax. No sources, Google indicates nothing of interest: "Bungles finger" (428), "Bungles finger" Bill Hill (2, 1 of which is WP). Name is also apparently an obscene slang term. GlassCobra 12:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple plot summaries only, no references. Details have been "coming soon" since March 2007. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL No reliable sources quoted in article, none apparently available. No announcement from label or artist. —Kww(talk) 11:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
collection of external links advertising products and companies. prod removed by ip, no reason given Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:List of OBD-II Cables & Scanning Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :List of OBD-II Gauges & Performance Monitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
*Don't throuw the notable babies out with the non-notable bathwater. so: Add appropriate links to the article On-board diagnostics iaw WP:LINKS then Delete. There is some useful information here (very useful) but it belongs in On-board diagnostics. Springnuts (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Written in a highly promotional tone (as witnessed by the occasional use of the pronoun "we"). No sources. Tags to point out these problems have been removed by the creator. No assertion of notability either, and I cannot find anything on the Web about a fraternity separate from Phi Eta Sigma yet bearing the same name. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See High school fraternities and List of high school fraternities and sororities for legitimate examples. Andreas (T) 13:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined G11 speedy - fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of humor. VG ☎ 09:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. BJTalk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined A7, as talkpage challenge was convincing enough to take to AFD for the community to decide. The article appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no references to review so I searched a few Indian newspaper archives for both "Bundelkhand and Pandey" and "Ekikrit" identified nothing related. I think it's fair to say that a political party that isn't mentioned AT ALL in these major newspapers is not notable, Bongomatic (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A piece of software to evaluate academic papers. Written by new user Dearsafa and rather short on independent references. I am rather dubious about its notability. (It is not for this AfD to comment on the usefulnes of the tool but I must say in passing that the idea seems as useful as Wikipedia new page patrollers judging articles on layout, wikification and other superficial matters - which of course they never do!) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually when a new method is postulated, it is not that easy to realize its notability immediately. I think it needs time and user's response as well. At the beginning I was thinking to talk about the mathematical model as if the question of notability did not arise this way. But I realize that it would be difficult for readers to understand the mathematical procedure. I have added a few new sections which will be helpful for readers to understand the approach along with the background of the SAFA. I have been adding new references slowly because I am also learning working with wiki. (Dearsafa 15:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC))
Perhaps, I need to change the page title to SAFA (Standardized Acceptance Factor Average)instead of SAFA Calculator v1.1. It seems to me that you are trying to say that the references are not relevant to the software. I feel I need to rewrite it with the different title. Then the references would be valid. A new method may not be necessarily very closed to the existing literatures that is what I am experiencing right now. Dearsafa 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearsafa (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
College part of a university. No references provided to support notability outside the university using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 09:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a Canadian music producer. A search on Factiva found nothing for this person, indicating that sourcing this article may be very difficult --Commander Keane (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school district. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) I don't see any guideline or policy that reflects the claimed broad consensus, but this is obviously a WP:SNOW keep. VG ☎ 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Additional available reviews in USA Today, Reference & Research Book News, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, and Publishers Weekly. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable autobiography. The article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sources have been added. VG ☎ 19:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article currently fails notability and verifiability requirements, in that it does not reference any third-party reliable sources. Searching has not brought any sources to light that would satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. Article has been tagged for notability concerns for over a month. Gazimoff 08:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 08:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by creator. Unannounced future album with no title and no information provided in reliable sources. Article is entirely composed of uncited rumors. ~ mazca t | c 06:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. and not likely to be one with a third relisting. TravellingCari 14:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not notable independent of Hermetic Qabalah. Semi-procedural nom for an IP. There is a related AfD English Qabalah and I listed this one separately just because someone asked me nicely, though I don't personally consider this much different/ notable enough to have a separate article. Sticky Parkin 21:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment to be fair, you can't call this equinox a peer-reviewed journal as it was written by the people themselves- it would be like me and a mate and someone we share an interest with all writing a few essays, putting them together and calling it a peer reviewed journal. I would like to direct people again to the article English Qabalah to take another look- it has been much improved and includes this theory and all the other theories on the subject, so is much more WP:NPOV and encyclopedic, whereas this is just an article about one groups' theories on the subject. As such, this one is superfluous, and it does not have sufficient independent notability from the English Qabalah to warrant another article. Sticky Parkin 08:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe in deleting material that provides information to people like myself
The arguments to delete above are specious.
What does it matter that all the books listed are self-published or from one publisher
Everyone has agendas, including the individuals whom is wishing to delete this material.
I came to this material through Google and it has had value for me.
That alone is enough to keep the article.
I have not read these books mentioned, but likely there is material the seekers to delete this page do not want some of us to have access too.
The material in the books may or may not be valid, that is the situation will ALL books.
All books are written with an agenda
Self publishing is no criteria for not allowing access, or information about access to such books, to others.
Material should be deleted only if it is repetitious, on many other pages, or just does not make any sense in the English language or language it is written in.
Any deletion beyond that is pure censorship, nothing more, one individual deciding that other individuals should not have access and information to read the material, for some reason the delete advocate 'believes' is valid.
This material should be kept if for no other reason than that it is not found on many other html pages, perhaps any other html pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.71.159 (talk • contribs) --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
should be merged with German Mediatisation and then deleted. Anshuk (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDILY DELETED as a blatant advertisement. No prejudice against a proper article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem to be a notable video game Anshuk (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Short Stack. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A song released just last week from an unreleased, unnamed upcoming album for a band at AFD is not going to be notable enough. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the above comment by Pn57 is true. This song has been getting a lot of airplay on major radio stations all around Australia. It even sold out at JB-HIFI. --Candy-Panda (talk) 10:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dictdef that's pretty much just a parking place for spam links Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Therapy program developed by nn doctor and research institute (who, based on their website, appear to exist to sell training and products related to this program). Not affliated with any Montessori organisation. One self-sourced external link, two non-working external links. Article started as obvious cut-and-paste copyvio and is maintained and promulgated by a series of single purpose accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. This is an amendment has not even passed. VG ☎ 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG ☎ 06:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sources to establish notabilty found (please add them to the article). VG ☎ 22:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG ☎ 05:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Firefoxman (G3 - Blatant vandalism) Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smells like a hoax, no sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G3, salted, and creator blocked for a week for vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. See discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USA National Grape Catching Competition Deadly∀ssassin 04:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure) WP:SNOW, no objection posted -Marcusmax (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to Channel Tunnel. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was ;speedily deleted by me as vandalism-- introducing false information. As noted in nom statement, there are no G-hits supporting the claim of notability. If assertion of notability were true, there would be. Dlohcierekim 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined, but I get exactly 7 Google hits for "Cozat Records" VG ☎ 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply an average, nonnotable church; all sources are directly affiliated with the church, except a single seminary publication, and that's not enough to confer notability. Average churches aren't notable unless proven otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). VG ☎ 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local company with references only from local newspapers. VG ☎ 02:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Notability established from reliable sources. VG ☎ 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of English public schools in Ottawa. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 02:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. There are other other articals about elemntary schools in ottawa, which to me seems that means this one should have the right to exist to. 2. I don't have the time or know-how to find more sources for this aritcal, but I'm sure they exist and others can and know where to find them. 3. Wikipedia's goal is "to create a database of all human knowledge." If you let this artical exist others will come along and help to expand it. Ever notice that the lable for a stub artical says "Please help by expanding this artical," not "please help by deleting this artical"? 4.Take these articals for example: Hawthorne Public School, Castlefrank Elementary School, Pinecrest Public School.
Please reconsider deleting this artical.--Kanata Kid (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the discussion here would support keeping this article.--Kanata Kid (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. PROD reasoning was that this person does not seem notable, it is an obvious autobiography, and there are no sources related to this person. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically a WP:DICTDEF. No substantive content beyond that. Free licenses are covered elsewhere. VG ☎ 02:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non admin closure - page is now a redirect.ukexpat (talk) 02:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created this page by mistake as the "John Cutler (yachstman)" article didn't show on the disambiguation "John Cutler" search Rudolph89 (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have watched this article since its creation in hopes that it would be expanded, and the subject's notability asserted but ... it appears to be a vanity entry most likely created by the subject herself. Her acceptance into a prestigious writing program, though referenced, isn't enough to warrant an article. — TAnthonyTalk 01:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references and tagged as such without improvement for a year. This article belongs in a bondage dictionary or a how-to guide and Wikipedia is neither. WJBscribe (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't figure out where else to state this...I am not a computer geek and usually have better things to do with my universe. Why is WIKIPEDIA DELETING topics such as this one that were being expanded upon in an effort to make them more encyclopedic? I added about 4 paragraphs in October, because this topic needed to be discussed separately from just Bondage cuffs, so that anyone querying wikipedia could learn about the different types that existed and their purpose. I only have a small amount of time to work on this occasionally and would have liked if giving the opportunity to try adding some people and time references to what I had added, but the article is all gone. There was some indication in the above discussion that there was going to be a merge with another article, but I saw no additional information there. And I have seen several other articles that just basically disappeared. Are you an inclusive encyclopedia or not, if not then you are becoming useless as a reference source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.55.9 (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. All delete !votes were placed before a Heymann job on the article, and I can't possibly see any reason to call for a delete now. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written much like an advertisement and appears to be being used by single-purpose accounts as a soapbox to promote the land trust. There is no obvious indication of why this organization is notable, as many of the sources appear to be unreliable, passing mentions, or press releases from the trust. This article has been deleted twice under WP:A7 and WP:G11, and was partially restored for an attempt to clean the article up, but the effect of this cleanup appears to be insufficient. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Fatality per WP:SNOW. Gazimoff 23:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL. ukexpat (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable church that does nothing more notable then the billions of other churches in the world. The church is not found in any major secondary source as well. Tavix (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. BJTalk 03:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed for four years largely in its present form without any references. A references tag was placed on it in April 2007, but still it has none. A nice essay perhaps, but unverified. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. |
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be the first shopping mall in Idaho, but I'm finding no substantial sources., just about a Sonic in the parking lot. Unexpanded in over two years. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unnotable small business (local notability doesn't count) that fails WP:CORP. The page has been orphaned for 3 years. Tavix (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. maybe a case of WP:NOTNOW. Clearly not currently sourced to meet inclusion criteria Spartaz Humbug! 05:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not explain notability of actor, page appears to have been created by the young actor himself. SynergyBlades (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined G11, but nonetheless appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable football referee per WP:1E as the article only talks about one event in which he was "notable" for, even though I would say he was just doing his job in that game. There are also some serious POV issues in the article (although not a reason for deletion). Tavix (talk) 00:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant find any references to verify the birth and death date, nor to indicate she died at age 20. I have created s:Author:Elizabeth Strong Worthington on Wikisource to record that she was the author of these two works. It is possible she is also author of a few more, but I cant see any notability. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC) John Vandenberg (chat) 02:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. BJTalk 03:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing, and I have doubts about the notability of this. rootology (C)(T) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are probably about 50 more books in English dealing with S&M, and every one of them will discuss this. GB is very incomplete in this genre. It's also very incomplete for fiction, though there are about 8 or 10 more on the page. Probably many more using variants of the term. This is part of the general culture and used freely as such; it's part of the generally accepted defining costume for characters in certain situations. some more academic works on the fiction
|
|
|
The result was merge to Strappado. BJTalk 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing, and I have doubts about the notability of this. rootology (C)(T) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability. The Dark Rangers haven't achieved enough notability for a Wikipedia article. Mythdon (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 03:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bondage term, tagged as being without references since June 2007. No doubt this exists but it doesn't seem to have sufficient coverage to warrant an article and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Contested prod, however there doesn't appear to me to be content worth merging. WJBscribe (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yachts aren't usually notable. This one has some references but i'm finding it hard to make up my mind. Considered speedy delete but decided against. Operating (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. While a headcount leans towards deleting, I am conscious of Novicka's improvements. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was one of a series of spamvertisements masquerading as articles created by Sentryparentalcontrols (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hearsomeinfo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (sock report)). Restored following a report to Wikimedia UK but no evidence this was office action or anything else that would trump consensus(see the article talk page). I'll notify User:AlisonW of this discussion. No evidence it's notable, and being software produced by a company that has something to do with Drew Bledsoe doesn't give it notability. Thoughts? TravellingCari 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 by Orangemike, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Tried to speedy, author decided it was ok to delete speedy tag, so I will just afd it. Should qualify as a SPEEDY DELETE, db-band. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was boldly redirected and salted by SirFozzie. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]