The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The song has not been released as a single. Therefore, it should be deleted per WP:SONG. Sam Blab 23:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cristian Cappiello (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Debut album of The Faceless, NN band per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Faceless and 4 speedy deletions as A7. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:NOTE[1]. AmaltheaTalk 23:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bring back the band page, delete the album page. Seems more like a hate to this band noting that you didn't delete any other tech band pages AND you removed them from the technical death metal page, when they are in fact tech death. 24.18.205.58 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem particularly notable. Sam Blab 23:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. leaning keep. Almost evenly split, keeps are slightly stronger in backing up. Relisting with this amount of participatin already is not likely to create consensus. TravellingCari 04:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability for this series of books. Schuym1(talk) 23:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No such formal title ever existed, and hence any attempt to define the rightful inheritance to such a title must represent POV, and the resulting account represent OR. The page appears to have been created solely as a POV fork to rebut the descent hypothesized in the Britain's Real Monarch documentary (itself FRINGE). The only authentic portions of this page were copied from the House of York page, and no benefit would come from merging the added nonsense back there. Agricolae (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed; kicking it to you guys. Though it was review by a secondary editor.
Anyway, rationale: WP:NFF NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This 2009 or 2010 remake fails WP:NFF with no indication when filming will start. Cast is rumored, production details are unknown. Half of the movie links have been pulled down. WP:CRYSTAL violation. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Withdraw per this: http://gliving.tv/music/?p=37. The Eeenie Meanie (or whatever it was) link does not show notability because that the label's website. I am fine with one reliable source that shows notability. The delete vote doesn't count because that was the creator's vote.NAC Schuym1(talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1(talk) 21:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Still seem to be a hoax, but it is the Laws not the article that's the hoax.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax [9] Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Purported to be a character from a book, I can find no evidence the book or the author exist. Hoax or not, the article anyway appears to be complete nonsense and should be speedied as such. Ros0709 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tim Yeo. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comes under BLP1E. The subject had a minor political office but is only really notable for being caught up in a political scandal. I doubt anyone remembers her name and the article is linked only from the name of someone else in the same scandal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was The result was speedy delete. Non admin closure. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly non-notable demo NS black metal band; fails WP:MUSIC by virtue of having no releases, no tours (it's a one man bedroom band effectively) and no coverage by independent reliable sources. So obscure even Metal Archives hasn't heard of them, and their Myspace has been deleted. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
?Notable
When I started to compile this list I thought it was appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. I had found the many lists here to be incredibly useful and thought that this one would be worth adding. Now I'm not sure it meets WP criteria, can't bring myself to dump it and in any case lack the experience and objectivity to judge it properly. So I'm bringing it in to be tried.
I am unsure if the list's potential as a word-games resource is of relevance to Wikipedia's aims or not. Either way I think it also provides useful information. If a reader Searches for Sum River (which has no Wikipedia article) the Search results page will show its entry in the list. There s/he will find that such streams do exist in Russia and Thailand and by following the cited web-links can find out more.
I must also declare a personal interest. If the list is thought worth keeping, information in it will provide a vital strand in a competition I am hoping will be run by a top UK daily newspaper. To tackle the competition, readers will have to use Wikipedia (for the list, obviously, and for other things as well). The page's notability will get a boost while the competition is on and I think there will be permanent positive effects on both its notability and the attitude to Wikipedia of the paper's readers (the paper in question tends to be a bit anti-Wikipedia.). I will be donating to Wikipedia one-third of whatever I may get for setting the competition.
I don't think this plan conflicts with the interests of Wikipedia. If the list's worth keeping, it's worth keeping (and improving). But is it worth keeping?
I'd say Keep but then I would, wouldn't I? Dinoceras (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original title of this was "Adam Kennedy (eco-scientist extraordinaire)" and it may be self-promotion (SPA author kennaster (talk · contribs)). The tone could be fixed, but the substance is thin. The references are (a) the web-site of his own "Kennedy Institute of Teaching and Research", (b) a paper published at a Student Research Symposium in April 2005, (c) a presentation at a conference in 2006. The "Kennedy Institute" seems to be just a database and calculator for the Trans-Niño Index, but it is part of a larger site which includes Kennedy's CV, showing seven published papers and a current position as Faculty Research Assistant at Oregon State University. This is some way short of notability to the standard of WP:PROF. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Schuym1(talk) 22:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources for this. Schuym1(talk) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as blatant and obvious misinformation. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any sources for this, so it seems to be something made up in one day. Schuym1(talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every research project at every university is not notable, and the article doesn't indicate why this particular project would be notable. Largo Plazo (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very poor article that contains nothing of value which is not already present on other articles such as Knowledge Management. It has been marked for improvement for some time and while some citations have been inserted no improvements have been made to the content. Further the one editor who seems interested has inserted long and meaningless use cases. In general this seems to be a article about one aspect of one author's (Skyrme) work with a few other quotes that mention knowledge or networking thrown in for good measure. --Snowded TALK 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xclamation point 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't say anything. It promises to say something and then is completely devoid of useful information. Either put the information in there right now or get rid of it. I'm not going to do it myself because I'm not sure why this information is even useful. A list of chancellors and vice-chancellors and of heads of Oxbridge colleges is manifestly worthwhile, by pro-vice-chancellors and treasurers, while meriting their own articles, don't seem to me to need a list. Oxonian2006 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious piece of OR not too mention nearly incomprehensible. Woland (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable company that fails to establish notability (company itself is but two years old) Eddie.willers (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dicdef covered by wiktionary:walk away from. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep since nominated by vandal. Hut 8.5 17:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is unproven. PehC346 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax. Can find no references to support the topic. No ghits on either Hadyn Place or Vladimir Provlov. If he single-handedly won the war for the Russians, seems like he'd be mentioned in a history somewhere. Fileponi Ravioli? -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. MBisanz talk 00:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:music and WP:ENTERTAINER, the only footnote is to a page that doesn't mention the subject, so no reliable third party sources as required by wp:v and wp:blp. Prod removed without indicating notability or providing any wp:rs. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t16:09z 16:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Single school, no references, no assertion of notability. Bradford44 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn and Merge. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NM. I've made several attempts to simply redirect the song to the appropriate album, but many users always break that redirect and add text that doesn't assert the song's notability. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 19:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "The Greatest" is the next main single, not this... this is less notable than that, and it doesn't even have an article CloversMallRat (talk) 06:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "The Greatest" may be the next main single, but it hasn't even charted on any charts, unlike "Hello Heartbreak" which has and I don't think the record company would release the song as a single via iTunes if the song wasn't going to be released.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mus001 (talk • contribs)
The result was nominator withdrawal[16] and WP:SNOW keep (non-administrative closure). – RyanCross (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable,suggest merger Fireaxe888 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (G11). Alexf42 13:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how I spell it (BikePure, Bike-pure, Bike-Pure, etc) I can't find anything that makes this organisation appear notable. SIS 14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC) SIS 14:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Bike-Pure I, as a new user to Wikipedia and surprised and delighted that someone read the article, regardless of its nature. Could you please assist; Advice on how I could improve the entry would be gratefully received. Bike-Pure is a just, independant organisation which will hopefully assist in eliminating Drugs from Professional cycling.
Currently they have 142 of the 701 top level riders signed up. A long way to go, but everyone (690 members in 12 countries) is doing it free and out of love for their sport. Thanks.--Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnny —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mylesrants (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is trying to end drug taking in sport, and identifying the cheats not a noble cause?
What size do we need to grow to before becoming notable?
--Mylesrants (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for (obviously) annoying anyone. I didn't know the deletion was incorrect as it does "edit from this point" We have 13,210 members. All very much care to the significance of the body.--Mylesrants (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
has anyone any advice for the retention of the organisations entry? assistance would be much appreciated--Mylesrants (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Discussion relating to merging, moving, or redirecting can continue on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources for this that shows notability. Schuym1 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Thr33 Ringz. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed single of a future album, fails WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:NOTE. Previous redirects were declined. AmaltheaTalk 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. The only external (non university related) reference is Times on line which just lists her as the student coordinator in a fact sheet. Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 13:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite getting lost and appearing in the papers, this dog is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." This story is not. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no third-party sources that mention this supposedly planned metro as being a real project. The external link in the article goes to vilniausmetro.lt, which states that “Vilnius Metro is a non-governmental organization that is popularizing the idea of a metro in the capital of Lithuania. The city of Vilnius does not yet have a metro; our goal is to educate the populace about the benefits of metro systems.” As long as no reliable, third-party source supports the claim that this is a real project (and not some NGO's vision), Wikipedia should not have an article about it per Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Kjetil r (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, a speedy deletion was proposed here, as well as in es.wikipedia and no.wikipedia (the Spanish and Norwegian articles seem to be translations of the English article). --Kjetil r (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as vandalism and per the consensus here.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy got declined, PROD was added, but this "upcoming film" doesn't even appear to be announced anywhere. If it's not a hoax, it's certainly WP:CRYSTAL SIS 13:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. This looks like a good candidate for a merge but that's matter for editorical discretion. There is no clear consensus to delete this as it stands and the sourcing there is is not addressed in the discussion Spartaz Humbug! 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assert of notability. Tagged for Notability since September 2007! It consists mainly of plot. A fictional character who appeared in only in 1 of the 7 seasons (so far) of a TV show. No reason to convert to a redirect a minor character like that. Magioladitis (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A most likely non-notable person. A Google News search and a Google search brings up nothing about this Jeff Berman. Schuym1 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bands are a bit outside my area of expertise, but this one certainly appears to fail the requirements of WP:BAND. Not signed to a label, no commercial releases, 46 discrete Google hits without a reliable source in the lot, and zero Google News hits. Their "official page" is at Myspace. (And for anyone who might wonder, desadarium is not Latin for "regret".) Deor (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Philippe as blatant misinformation. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little concerned that I could not find any sources for this species, perhaps it is a hoax? If a reliable source is found then this AfD can be closed as keep immediately. --Commander Keane (talk) 12:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I searched for reliable sources, I saw that the attempted murder is notable, but not one of the twins by themselves. Schuym1 (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE INTO NEW ARTICLE THEN SEEK SPEEDY DELETE - Nonadmin closure by nominator PHARMBOY (TALK) 13:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already redirected one of the articles that was a couple of sentences from Diet and cancer (no merge was needed). Original author's justification for creating the articles was since we have articles such as list of sex positions etc then we should also have this kind of articles which violates WP:OTHERSTUFF. As a stand alone article, doesn't seem to be a notable enough topic with content that isn't already better covered in other articles. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Added 2 more I added the two articles. The one is simply a cut and paste from the cancer article, again with rationale that other "similar" articles about sex exist. Please note that "under construction" tags were added AFTER the afd process began. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball Keep . NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I have turned it into a disambiguation page. Please renew your comments
The result was speedy deleted as spam. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 03:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks reliable sources that verify this company's notability. A google search did not reveal sources to me. Prod removed by creator, whose username is the same as the name of this company's marketing company, indicating a probable conflict of interest. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Change to redirect via wp:bold and wp:snow (3 in row) - Non-admin closure. PHARMBOY (TALK) 16:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company that went bust after 1 unsuccessful release. Their domain no longer exists either. SIS 11:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There's a wide variety of opinions and some consensus that this article shouldn't be here, but none as to what specifically to do with it. Discussion on moving, redirecting, merging, etc. can continue at Talk:Pickering Defense. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is a very rare chess opening, 1.e4 h5. The ChessBase database of four million + games has only 42 game examples. Although there are other dubious (e.g. Latvian Gambit) and poor (e.g. Marshall Defense) openings, these have at least been played often, sometimes as a fair attempt to surprise an opponent, and have been analyzed in the Encyclopedia of Chess Openings and other chess publications. That is not true of this line, there are virtually no Black players would play 1.e4 h5? except as a silly joke, since the move 1...h5 has no redeeming features. (We have some other silly joke openings as well, but at least they are covered in the Oxford Companion to Chess.) Apart from these silly joke game examples, the only non-wiki analysis I have seen of this is here, where it is adorned with a skull (meaning "don't play it") along with the words "never seen". Looking at the table of contents at Amazon, even Eric Schiller's large collection of opening horrors called Unorthodox Chess Openings doesn't seem to cover this line. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as vandalism. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 23:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Urbandictionary-based article with invalid references for a slang term which appears to be in extremely limited use, if in use at all. SMC (talk) 10:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Tonya Harding. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am reluctant to put this on AfD, as I suggested merging this to Tonya Harding, another user suggesting either PRODding or AfDing this if this article fails to meet WP:BIO, which I feel it fail to do anyway as he states in the talk section that the person concerned is deceased therefore, any BLP concern does not apply Jay Pegg (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. Exactly where to merge can be hashed out on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This element of fiction 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) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as obvious and blatant attack page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems obviously vandalism, only related google hit I found is http://nl.netlog.com/go/directory/people/c/8/33.html Cyfal (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless. Ghost is imaging software, and none of the ex-Veritas or Legato products are mentioned. Virtually all commercial backup software has most of the arbitrarily chosen features listed (e.g. compression, automation), and the list of platforms is hopelessly incomplete and does not indicate the things which are actually important in selecting backup software, such as vss integration, host agent availablility for AIX, Solaris and the like, VMware support / integration (and I guess VCB), data deduplication, distributed operation, delegated user privileges and self-service restore, management of multiple recovery point and recovery time objectives, management reporting and analysis, media ageing and rotation - in fact it's close to impossible to come up with a table comparing backup products which is not classified by price band and market, or hopelessly sparse and unreadable. The list is also unsourced. I think this is more like a school project scratchpad than an article. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software; contested PROD. No substantial third party coverage on this subject is in evidence. Sandstein 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created by COI user, Coomerahouseboat (talk · contribs) and was tagged with speedy but speedy removed. Article's subject has not received coverage and significant discussion in multiple sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under CSD A7.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable (speedy deleted by creator), no reliable sources as requierd by wp:v, possible conflict of interest, not written in an encyclopedic tone - possibly a joke. -- Jeandré, 2008-10-04t09:08z 09:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL, parent artist also fails WP:MUSIC Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 09:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Fuhghettaboutit. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is on an album by a non-notable redlinked artist. Matty (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was redirected to Anthropological criminology (the same exact topic, but adds modern theory and evaluation to Race and crime's anachronistic racist history) on August 31[23] per discussion whose last two comments were on July 14[24] and August 30[25]. An editor who did not take part in this discussion has restored the page[26]. There is no need for both of these articles; Race and crime is a POV fork at which several editors (or socks?) have tried to reinstate a series of statistics[27] in violation of wp:PSTS ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."), and which even those who want the stats in the article claim have proven unanalyzable by professionals [28]. Furthermore, Race and crime is an absolute wp:coatrack, at which racist history and unintelligible stats are covered rather than the huge and multifaceted sociological treatise one might expect with the title "Race and crime". NJGW (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This topic is cogent to sociology.Gooogen (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable school and badly written article Anshuk (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC) And the article looks like it's Start Class. Schuym1 (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Anshuk (talk) 07:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Can't CSD a school.. Anshuk (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pinoy Dream Academy 2. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why it should be DELETEDor REDIRECTED: Notable for one event only, that is Pinoy Dream Academy. Although take note that we can make articles to winners in the competition according to WP:MUSIC A9 which says "Has won or placed in a major music competition". She has been eliminated on the finale night but is not a runner up according to the show's policy. The article even failed to say why is it notable. The article also has many unverified claims like she can do whistle register, not to mention a lot of reference problems. Clearly it is very lacking-no biography, no guestings etc. To familiarize your self please read WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTABILITY. Happy Editing! (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. kurykh 01:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominator: This article is nothing more than a PR piece for an insurance industry organization and has absolutely no business being included in an encyclopedia. --Goodrule (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to properly rewrite the various unsourced articles in the Korean diaspora series; I have not been able to find any sources which discuss this population and so I see no hope that this one can be cleaned up. There are not 10,000 Koreans in Honduras, as this article claims; South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates there are just 491 [31], which makes it even less likely that any sociologists, journalists, or other reliable sources would have written something substantial about them. cab (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to properly rewrite the various unsourced articles in the Korean diaspora series; I have not been able to find any sources which discuss this population and so I see no hope that this one can be cleaned up. South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade estimates there are just 242 Koreans in Venezuela [32]; such a small number makes it unlikely that any sociologists, journalists, or other reliable sources would have written something substantial about them. cab (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
autobiographical, notability not asserted or established, complete lack of reliable third-party sources Bob (QaBob) 04:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Training (meteorology). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers the same material covered in a more aptly titled article (see Training (meteorology). Moreover, the references cited use only the terminology from the other article, and do not even use the phrase "storm train". While there are uses of the phrase to be found, the phrase is completely obvious from context (I don't see a need for the main article in the first place, but have given up that cause), and any doubt can be resolved from the page that has the NOAA / NWS definition Training (meteorology). The additional information in this page does not actually belong here. The flooding point is made in the main article and the formation point is made in any number of articles about thunderstorms, rain, and convective instability. Perhaps a redirect may be appropriate, but there should be no separate article under this heading. Bongomatic (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I might be wikilawyering when I see this, there is an assertion of notability to this article. A single for an untitled debut album that features a known rapper and was released doesn't seem to pass the standard at WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. good reasons on both sides, no consensus likely to emerge. TravellingCari 16:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of a long list of "adjective noun" subjects where there is nothing beyond the obvious meaning. Here there is an attempt to enhance the one-sentence dictionary-like definition with sociological observations with a tenuous relationship with the subject. Bongomatic (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete:WP:Crystal and WP:Music. Also there isn't any information about the track list other than the one single.
Dontyoudare (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: Soon there will be a tracklist released for this album, and information about it's promotion. Why delete it when it is going to be made again within a few days?
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable term/website. Cited sources are all published by blogs and show no real world notability. BJTalk 03:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. or nomination withdrawn, take your pick (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible autobiography, seing as User:BrothersThree is a SPA who has redirected his user page to the biography. I was unable to find much for sources via google or lexisnexis, and I'm not sure the links in the article itself demonstrate notability. Looking at the criteria in WP:BIO:
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. - N/A of any of the above. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Upcoming actress" = WP:CRYSTALBALL violation. Biruitorul Talk 02:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the nomination was withdrawn. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject may be notable, but if the source for the article is the director of USAutoPARTs, then we have a COI problem. Best to start over, if at all. Biruitorul Talk 02:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 16:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced self-promotion. Biruitorul Talk 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Fabrictramp SuperSilver901 (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:PROF. Biruitorul Talk 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Small newspaper of purely local interest. Biruitorul Talk 03:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is enough to prove its notability. --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 13:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. TravellingCari 16:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party sources; entirely in-universe. Biruitorul Talk 03:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. TravellingCari 16:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:PROF. Biruitorul Talk 03:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. , whether or not it should be merged is an editorial discussion that does not require AfD. No !votes for deletion TravellingCari 16:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions of him do exist, but I haven't found anything non-trivial. Biruitorul Talk 03:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent spam, like its counterpart Paper Sky. Biruitorul Talk 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent spam, like its counterpart Mammoth. Biruitorul Talk 03:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In-universe or at best forum sources; no third-party evidence of notability. Biruitorul Talk 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography written by a man who lacks notability and is trying to use Wikipedia to establish it - needless to say, a no-no. Nice shades, though. Biruitorul Talk 03:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. may be deleted if event does not occur MBisanz talk 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not taking place JakeDHS07 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-I noted my concerns in the talk page about 4 days ago, but on reflection I think this may as well go to AfD now. It is obvious from the empty talk page, and history of almost entirely anonymous edits, that nobody is going to come to the talk page to discuss this. Basically, this should be deleted because it is not notable. I am sympathetic to debating articles, I've been a contributor to a number of them, but this is a blatant attempt to dodge the criteria for notability given on the list of debaters page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_debaters). There is nothing notable about being a "notable" NZ debater, some of these IVs are small and insignificant, and this is basically a clear glory page that attempts to dodge the extensive discussion and rulings on debater notability. If you have won a world championship or something, fine, you are listed on the list of debaters page, but this is just vanity of no note. by all means, these IVs can have their own pages, that should mostly fit in notability. But to give a page to list all the previous finalists and top performers, for some very average IVs, is for mine a step way too far. To conclude; let the previous winners be noted as a subsection on the page of each IV (assuming the IV is notable), but all these lists of stuff covered elsewhere is just too much JJJ999 (talk) 03:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fresh Mex" is a registered trademark of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc.. There is no cited caselaw here or anywhere else suggesting that this trademark has been diluted. The article cites no sources at all, much less any suggesting that there is any such general term in English as "Fresh Mex" (in any form of capitalization or lack thereof) to describe cuisine of any variety. The list is pure original research. There is also no Fresh Mex or Fresh mex article - both bluelinks simply redir to this list, which strongly suggests PoV-pushing – clearly someone wishes that this were a definable term in general English when it is not. Furthermore, I cannot find any source for any such thing as "Mex" or "mex" to begin with; the phrase "fresh mex" or "Fresh Mex" is meaningless gibberish (which is okay in trademarks, as many of them are, but is emphatically not okay in WP article names, even aside from the trademark violation, OR and sourcing problems). Finally, the list seems not to serve any encyclopedic purpose and has no inclusion criteria. PS: The fact that a few other restaurant chains on the list use the word "fresh" in their names is neither here nor there; so do many other restaurants that have nothing at all to do with Mexican cuisine. PPS: The list is of national restaurant chains (national? what nation?), but the list title says it is of "restaurants". – SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a challenge that every Mexican restaurant chain is facing or soon will: Healthier Mexican food is coming to a restaurant near you. The trend, variously called "health Mex," "fresh Mex," "next Mex" and "lite Mex" (and by some grease-aholics who hate it, "fern Mex"), has been quietly developing for a decade in a few of the nation's 20,000 Mexican restaurants. It still accounts for but a small segment of the $8.9 billion in annual sales at Mexican restaurants.
Replies:
(Try this search for better results.)
Again, please state a policy based reason as to why the list fails to meet the standards for AfD. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to see my point: you have not given a valid reason why the article does not meet the standards for inclusion, that is what an AfD is all about. You have to demonstrate how the article in question fails to meet the the standards of WP:Note, WP:RS, WP:PSTS and WP:V; that it violates the standards of WP:OR; or that it doesn't meet the standards of WP:Lists. I have shown that the subject in question does in fact meet the standards of the former and does not violate the standards of the center or the latter. Yes, the subject can mean different things to different people and organizations, but that is not grounds for deletion.
As per your claim that the list items found in lists need to be cited, here is some proof of what I am saying is correct using one randomly chosen Featured List: List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films. Take a look how the list is formatted and you will see that the list itself does not contain any citations (the notes do not count as citations). The only cites that are found in this list are in the lead and included paragraphs, just as they are in this list - exactly as I have been saying all along. The list items included in the list itself do not need to be cited, it is the individual articles that the list items link to that need to be properly cited.
So to be more specific, please show concrete evidence that this list violates one of the standards I listed in this posts first paragraph. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
original research, indescriminate information Habanero-tan (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. consensus appears to be that improvements during the AfD are acceptable TravellingCari 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Neutralitytalk 02:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC
*Delete - Unfortunately, G11 promotional. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Neutralitytalk 02:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Book with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a dormitory, this is the only housing at the college. Therefore, it is an important component of the college and deserves to be merged with the ICC website. You cannot consider something non-notable or insignificant if you have no reference point. This is not a community college but a junior college - and yes, there is a difference. As the only housing at the institution, this is an important reference source for anyone interested in the college. --Nalask (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unlike Independent Democrat, this article offers no examples of or references to Republicans who have failed to secure the Republican nomination for office, then ran as an independent candidate and defeated the Republican candidate. Rtphokie (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if Independent Democrat is kept, this should too. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article of questionable notability. Violates WP:ONEEVENT and our policy on criminal acts. Wizardman 01:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Union for Reform Judaism. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent notability. Elliskev 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
insufficient notability: appeared in a couple of notable productions, but not in notable roles; no references other than IMDB and a fansite - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Seems to pass requirements for actors although he clearly isn't a superstar. Mentioned in New York Times is valid. Needs a lot of work though, from reliable paper sources if possible. As it is, this nomination is completely valid and there is abolsutely no assertion in the content of why it constitutes an article. I would strongly suggest the creator improves it and adds information about his acting career using reliable sources. The Bald One White cat 19:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. kurykh 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Near as I can tell, this reformation is not notable, even in the German version of Guano Apes. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strummer25 (talk) 08:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Their official website has not been updated since June 2006. It seems they have one album out, and any coverage i can find relates to that, hence they fail WP:MUSIC at this time. Recreate if/when they find more notability or the next album is released.Yobmod (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how this "method" is notable, and how encyclopedic the method is. Appears to be a forum to advertise a method of teaching, with links to companies that offer it. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Yellow River State Forest. MBisanz talk 14:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think fire towers can possibly be notable. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Bill Jelen. MBisanz talk 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:RS. The only thing, notability wise, that this article has going for it is the creator, Bill Jelen. Google searches turn up hundreds of thousands of results, but only the first 4 are relevant to the company, and two of the four are the company page. I say delete or merge with a better article. (possible merge with Bill Jelen) Undead Warrior (talk) 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]