The result was delete. Non-notable athlete/Non-notable seicer | talk | contribs 01:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Athlete as he never made an appearance in a professional league. He only played reserves football which doesn't make him notable. Crickettragic (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Jerry, a few here but when you filter out the false positives, they just confirm that he has been unable to find a permanent team. Has not played. While WP:ATHLETE may not hold to non-athletes, it has been accepted as a general guidelines for non notable athletes to keep Wikipedia from turning into a directory of athletes who have never played. If they're not notable as athletes adn aren't notable under any other guideline, why keep? TravellingCari 02:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Lucy Power. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. Non-notable marina seicer | talk | contribs 01:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My initial hope was to find sources and expand this article, however on further investigation it seems that this baseball team would fail notability guidelines. There is very little in the way of 3rd party sources and it also seems the team is not in the top few tiers of Baseball in the United Kingdom, where the sport is amateur. Improving the article to the required standards seems difficult, but if anyone else can find suitable sources to prove notability I will gladly withdraw the nomination. Basement12 (T.C) 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7, as the only significant contributor has below agreed with deletion. GRBerry 17:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional ship does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. BJTalk 00:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)corrected by – Toon(talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional group does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Will userify if someone wants to attempt a merge. — Coren (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was already PROD deleted. It's clearly promotional and no evidence of notability is given other than claiming that 3000 people (a tiny figure in global terms) have played episodes online. It's also very poor quality and possible not fixable, especially if no one around here knows anything about the topic. Largo Plazo (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Why the heck was this relisted? Nobody called for a delete, really, and the nom withdrew. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy for "not notable" got declined, although both editors agreed it was a borderline case. Suggestion was to take it here, so here it is. [reply]
Delete - My reasoning: I don't think WP:BIO is met at all. Sophia Jansson's father and uncle are fairly notable, and indeed most of the article and refs are actually about them. Sophia gets two sentences. Basically she appears to be just another office manager, working in her father's company. I don't see how that makes her notable. With all due respect, of course. SIS 22:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Changed to keep. The current version[10] is a huge improvement compared to the one I tagged for deletion[11] four days ago. I think notability is now shown and well sourced. I suggest to close this discussion and keep the article. SIS 22:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basic criteria -
Y - There is a presumption of notability in cases where "[the person in question] has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Here Jansson-Zambra is the subject of a number of reliable independent sources (I believe this is the reason the speedy-delete was twice refuted).
- Additional criteria -
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y - "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included."
- "The person has received a notable award or honor" -
Y - Here Jansson-Zambra has been asked to speak at numerous events including invitations from the Finnish consulate in Washington. There is at least an argument that this is something of an honor.
- "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" -
Y - Here Jansson-Zambra provides supervision and oversight for the comics made after the Moomin series and maintains artistic control over the output related to the greater Moomin series (including print, film, and graphic media). She is widely cited in relation to the product line (See below).
- "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." -
Y - I already have provided 6 reputable cites. See the following additional examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). Although arguably not a peer, her aunt also gives her mention in her novel, Rent Spel, and she is the hero of the book Sommarboken by implicit reference. As discussed in the rationale for invalidation of the proposed speedy-delete, the high caliber of many of these citations is above question.
- "The person has played a major role in co-creating, a collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" -
Y - As artistic director in charge of oversight she contributes to the development of the greater Moomin series. This series is widely popular in many (33+) countries (See ref). An incomplete list of scholarly works on the series can be found at the fi.wikipedia article.
- "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." -
Y - (a) Jansson-Zambra's work relates to the Moomin series and as the main author of the series has died Jansson-Zambra's work may be considered either peri- or deutero- rather than proto-canonical. This is significantly monumental in nature. (b) She has taken part in the 31st "Dreams & Visions" Annual Children's Literature Conference and will take part in Helsinki Design Week 2008 in a week or so. She has also been a major part of at least one documentary on her aunt ([14]). (c) evidence of critical attention may be found throughout the sources on the page and those provided here.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the last discussion was closed as no consensus, Stifle, myself and Mukerjee debated this article significantly on the talk page, with Stifle and myself wishing to redirect it to the article on the murder, claiming the subject was notable for only one event and Mukerjee believing Sharma warranted an article of his own. I have no doubt that the case was very significant, but the notability of the subject seems to derive primarily from the case. Note that there are also significant BLP concerns- the article is mostly rather negative, and there are some accusations that have remained unsourced for a while. Take, for instance, this line- "Shortly after he was released on bail in 2003, there was a fight between employees of Blue Ice and some customers; Manu too was reportedly involved, but his name was dropped from the case and the disco’s manager was booked instead." This is unsourced, and implies Sharma's guilt in an unrelated bar-brawl. As discussion on the article talk page got nowhere, this nomination should help settle the issue. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On notability criteria: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic.
Going through the article, I concede a lot of content is duplicated on the Manu Sharma page that belongs to the Murder of Jessica Lall. Intricate details of the trial must be kept out, and only summarised information on him be left on his biography page.
In the news for events outside the murder (this might include content that would be suitable for the Manu Sharma page, but not the Murder of Jessica Lall page. This would lend further support for the fact that we can do with an independent Manu Sharma article that does not fit in the murder page.
=Nichalp «Talk»=07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The murder was committed in 1999, but news reports keep coming up. I found this report from day before yesterday on Times of India [16], which discusses Manu Sharma's jail stay. The Manu Sharma article itself cites another report from Sep 2 08, dealing with the legal effects of his imprisonment. There are some twenty newspaper reports that talk about him in this month of September alone.
If a person keeps appearing with this frequency wouldn't one normally consider him notable - for heaven's sake, it's nine years since the murder, and nearly two years since his conviction even. I mean, how much more notable does a person have to be? The vast majority of LPB's on Wikipedia have far fewer media mentions.
The section on WP:ONEEVENT states:
I think we all agree that the subject, a murder, was not larger. It became large because actually Manu, the son of a big political leader, an ex-cabinet minister at the center. In India, children of politicans are deemed potential leaders - Rajiv Gandhi, for one, or for that matter, Indira Gandhi. Manu was far bigger than the news of the murder alone. The ToI article cited above describes him as a "young politician on the make".
I think all of us would agree, even Milgram did in the debate on the Manu Sharma discussion page, that he is not a standard ONEEVENT case - by no means is he a "low profile person" involved in a "larger subject".
Thus a) he does not fit ONEEVENT, and b) he is NOTABLE based on reports. mukerjee (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete - I have to disagree with Nichalp here. Manu Sharma's only claim to notoriety is that he murdered a bartender. And inexplicably, the murder became national news. For years. Outside of this, he has no claim to fame, notoriety or notability. For an entry in an encyclopedia, apart from notability, there has to be such a thing as 'encyclopedicity' too. Quite simply, every thing or individual that has made the news does not automatically become worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Sarvagnya 01:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Googlean,
do think what you are saying. your argument, if I may rephrase it is:
So just ONEEVENT'ness is not the issue. I agree. Even Charles Lindbergh was basically one-event. Tim McVeigh is OK not just because it was a BIG EVENT, (which MS's trial also was). In the end we judge a topic's encyclopedicity by its notability. The point about Manu Sharma is really the same. As pointed out many times above, he is extremely well covered, talked about, and relevant, and given his impact on the Indian legal system, he will remain so.
Indeed, the following are some more instances, of people who are clearly ONEEVENT, yet they are now notable enough and are clearly encyclopedic:
I think both belong on wikipedia, though they are clearly oneevent. In my opinion however, the following should go:
The difference between CB and JAM is in their notability. I think those who know abt these things should put an AfD on CB. But the other two are sufficiently notable that they should stay.
Dear Googlean, this is precisely what we are saying about Manu. mukerjee (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An essay without any references: WP:OR Ros0709 (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. — Coren (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are similar articles for some other politicians, but they have been magnets for controversy among editors, and magnets for useless material. The scope of this article is vague, and other articles already cover this subject's political positions and the like. So, much of the material here is redundant, and the rest is not notable enough. See WP:N and WP:BIO. This type of article easily becomes a content POV fork, as this one already has, and it’s just not suitable for an encyclopedia. Material about Palin's religious views, insofar as they may affect her political positions, can go into the article about her political positions (and her personal religious beliefs do not require a sub-article in addition to the brief description in the Sarah Palin article).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I supported other subarticles where there was a valid topic but the title and topic is not well-defined here. "Political image" sounds partly redundant with "Political positions" an article that we already have. Delete this now but keep the door open for other subarticles that cover a valid topic with a well-defined scope.Hobartimus (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I would expect, however, that unless the page gets a makeover it would not survive another AfD — Coren (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article as a whole satisfies the notability criteria when comparing it to other forms of motorsport, i.e. Formula One and MotoGP. There is insufficient, third party reliable-sources to satisfy firm notability in the wider range. D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person is not notable. This article created by User:Gregorik/ User:Gregorik/András Gregorik and this articlewas deleted in the Hungarian Wikipedia second time, for not being notable enough. --Alacoshos (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at WP:COIN, where passing to AFD was advised on grounds of lack of notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. csd g4 Cirt (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination. I declined a speedy deletion request as the article attempts to establish notability (but whether or not it is successful is debatable). There is a WP:COI issue as the author is apparently the subject himself, but that is not in itself sufficient reason to delete. Aleta Sing 20:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was speedily deleted once before. There's pretty much no sources at all, and as stated, there's an obvious conflict of interest. A google search for "Mark James Van Woert" turns up 8 pages, 4 of which are IMDB and Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, possibly if you could do a Google search of VanWoert Entertainment, Inc. and or Markus James, then many more pages will surface that will sufficiently prove creditability and should allow the article to stay. Thank you. User:Mark James Van Woert 18:39, 14 September 2008
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. A Google search for "Ian S. Gibson" returned only 52 hits, most of which did not refer to the musician. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) as the articles in question for the disambig. have been created. RockManQ (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This disambiguation page refers to two pages that do not exist. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Entirely promotional. — Coren (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy article on an e-commerce software product with very few news articles, most of which are press releases. Sofware was launched in Feb 2008 and appears to have attracted little in the way of interest - It has won some sort of award but does not seem to meet the corporate notability requirements Peripitus (Talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Soft redirect' to Wiktionary.. — Coren (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a dictionary definition attempting to masquerade as a disambiguation page; it fails in this because it doesn't link to any ambiguous articles. I don't see what could be written about kvetching beyond the dictionary definition which Wiktionary already has an entry on. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article describing a future TV character for which notability cannot be verified until the TV episode airs on Christmas. — Edokter • Talk • 19:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Person fails WP:Athlete as he has only played in a semi-professional league. An exception could perhaps be made if he had a notable career but this person has not won an major award. Crickettragic (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Primary sources and press releases do not notability indicate. — Coren (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for non-notable software / service. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Implicitly contested prod. Unreferenced article about a concept vehicle, notability unasserted. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list of characters does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable vanity page. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Godzilla: Unleashed. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video games in which it appears. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Sly Cooper characters. MBisanz talk 16:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of characters in the Ratchet & Clank series. — Coren (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to City School District of New Rochelle. ffm 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a school (prekindergarten to grade 2) that is not notable. Claim of notability in the article is "recognized as a Sharing Success Program by the State of New York," but the "recognition" is only that the school is listed in a booklet as an example of a school that utilizes a special program created outside the state of New York.
Some contents of this article could be merged into City School District of New Rochelle. In that school district article, details about individual elementary schools have been deleted (repeatedly) in the past for copyvio and/or advertising-like and/or extremely trivial and/or contributions of a banned user, but that history would not bar inclusion of reliably sourced nontrivial, nonpromotional content. Orlady (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list with dubious inclusion criteria. The definition of "controversy" is vague and the list is WP:OR because it does not elaborate why the books listed here are "controversial" by providing reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is too open-ended and biased, and obviously has no definite criteria for selecting which books make the list. It is also full of inaccuracies. For example, it states that "Of Mice and Men" promotes "euthanasia," instead of animal cruelty, which is essentially what a man ripping apart another animal without cause or reason, regardless of his mental capacity, should be called. This book, including The Grapes of Wrath and Animal Farm must not have been too controversial, as I went to an extremely conservative high school and these texts and others on the list were requirements, as opposed to say Lolita or a Clockwork Orange. The book also transcends U.S. standards and lists books that were not banned in the U.S., but in other countries, so why not include authors like Colette or Leonard Cohen in that list? Or, better yet, why not list ALL of Michael Moore's books or all books denouncing or supporting the war in Iraq, WWI and II, Vietnam, etc because they have all been considered controversial. Where is "Rabbit Run?" Madonna's book depicting S&M and homosexuality made the list but not Marilyn Manson's bio? It should be deleted and rewritten with more definite criteria, and specifics as to why each book is considered controversial (including time and culture at the time it was written, author's background, whether or not it was banned and why, when it was redistributed, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandieadams (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Change to a category This sounds more like a suitable topic for a category than an article. Sebwite (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 01:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This list covers only a part of the UEFA competition records and furthermore that part is much better covered in that article. There is no need for this list. Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coren (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been authored by the subject of the article in violation of conflict of interest guidlines, leading one to question the subject's notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Zero sources, zero verifiability — Coren (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced tour. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Delete.
Also nominating
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N and WP:RS, no improvements in a year+. Wizardman 17:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nominating for deletion as the subject appears to be non-notable and non-verifibable in accordance with the policies and guidelines of the project. The WP:COI creator and main contributor removed the PROD tag and all the tags for improvement without addressing the issues and according to[this] has doubts himself whether he is actually sufficiently notable for inclusion Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 05:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was PROD-ed as "Unmaintainable list - current entries seem random and unjustified, probable violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY", but then removed by creator. I believe an AFD is appropriate, as this seems redundant to Category:Blogs, which already acts as a repository of all notable blogs on WP. ZimZalaBim talk 17:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coren (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mass original synthesis and content forking, gross pov issues. Perception of Arabism is OR, on the verge of fringe Soman (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the very citing the source for material [22] that was spread in the internet to anyone that can use it freely shows that the "sockpuppet" claim/s were/is false. As to the material itself it has all links and sources to provide how Nasser the almost fopunder of Arabism used Hitler as a model for his hatred so is Bathism's Arabism's bigotry.
Garlingos (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ffm 23:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources, which cannot be found. Thus, this article fails our general notability guideline. Past AFD stated that sources existed and to give this article time, but in due time the article has not found sources, giving weight to my finding that the only coverage of this topic is insignificant, or in inappropriate/unreliable/non-independent sources. Randomran (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW; upon further investigation (and an odd yet timely Facebook friend request from this person), this is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing joke article created by a current student. --Kinu t/c 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be WP:HOAX and/or WP:COI article. Poetry claims are not verifiable, as this individual is not listed on the Bridport or Griffin websites. Ultimates fails WP:N and violates WP:V. --Kinu t/c 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Coren (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, and article lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources. See also a similar AFD currently in progress at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West. Stifle (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ffm 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The album in question doesn't seem notable. iMatthew (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Coren (talk) 03:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Notability requirements. Contains almost no inbound links. - Superflewis (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn after article improvement — Coren (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league player who has no other claim to notability. Fails WP:BASEBALL#Players Grsztalk 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted (CSD g1). GDonato (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MADEUP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 05:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list, which may never be complete. Also fails Notability requirements, and contains no notes, references or inline citations. The title is also misleading, as the article does not state what exactly constitues a "Famous" person. Superflewis (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 15:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jak & Daxter (series). MBisanz talk 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 23:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jak X: Combat Racing. BJTalk 23:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jak 3. BJTalk 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Redirect to Little Big Adventure. BJTalk 23:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not establish notability independent of the video game. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ultimately, this is a non notable constructed term of very little use. No prejudice against a redirect if someone can find a decent target. — Coren (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable figure. Most importantly, mega- simply means great. Its use to mean the number one million is as an SI prefix ONLY. Georgia guy (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To enlarge on some points I made above, mathematically none of chiliagon, myriagon or megagon is notable enough to deserve its own article. The relative merits of "mega" and other prefixes have little to do with the notability of the derived polygon names. If any of these articles were to remain, then it would need to seek notability elsewhere - in fantasy gaming or some such - though my earlier web search suggested nothing worth a Wikipedia article. These words might be worth adding to a dictionary, but that is not what Wikipedia is. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied per WP:CSD#A7. Notability not established. seicer | talk | contribs 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, article still orphaned after 5 weeks Socrates2008 (Talk) 14:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created on the assumption that Carol Adams had won election to the Western Australian Legislative Assembly. She didn't; which calls her notability into question. Bush shep (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Characters in Outrageous Fortune. Canley (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom. Contested prod. Unreferenced stub about a fictional character with no context or real world relevance.
I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason.
McWomble (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and non-encyclopedic topic - do we need an article on every possible type of consultant? —G716 <T·C> 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 23:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial page that is not needed. iMatthew (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This album seems to be extremely rare, possibly a bootleg. Google search gives nothing useful. Billboard.com doesn't even mention this album on Coolio's discography. Reverend X (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom - was nominated for SD as a recreation of a previously deleted article. While it is (superficially, at least), the article is different enough that I didn't think speedying it was the way to go. Perhaps the biggest difference is that the current article is fairly well sourced, whereas the previous article was nothing but WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. Still, I figured it was a close enough call that another AfD was called for - I have no strong opinion on whether it should be kept. faithless (speak) 11:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn wrestling John MacReen (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per request of creator. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn company John MacReen (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
un verifiable fails WP:CRYSTAL only return on google search is this article Brilliant trees (talk) 10:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can only find one source for this person, "Business Update; Makeover corporation delivers on site medical services at Florida facility" that lists some of his qualifications. I do not know whether that is enough. Are there more sources out there, or should this article be deleted? Commander Keane (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that a bikini model is notable for coming 3rd in a Miss Australia pageant. Grahame (talk) 08:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Seems like most everyone agrees these two are notable. Closing early per WP:SNOW. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that science fiction fans are notable even if they get nominated for awards for best fanzine. This could lead to articles on soccer or Neighbours fans. Grahame (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it is similar.[reply]
The result was delete. I think it's snowing outside... Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No release date and unconfirmed: clear failure of WP:MUSIC. Ros0709 (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. A google search throws up nothing but Myspacey type things (and stuff about unrelated things that are also named Baxter House). They've self-released a single album. There are a handful of sources, but I don't think they meet what WP:SECONDARY asks for. Reyk YO! 07:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion. Kralizec! (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fails WP:BIO. Article has had multiple ((hangon)) tabs placed, suggesting that any speedy or PROD would be contested. Also recommend creation protection (WP:SALTing). MuZemike (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Article has been cleaned up. Contains 8 External Links and 4 references. This discredits WP:N (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contributing editor unilaterally removed speedy delete tag. Subject fails notability standards. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. For those interested in merging the page elsewhere, I'd suggest taking up that discussion on the talk page. However, there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO: She has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. She was sacked for being pregnant, like thousands if not millions before her. Scolaire (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Delete. 05:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Subject fails notability requirements. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 07:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add Cathryn (Catie) Phipps, Phipps Institute, Catherine Phipps and American dietology to this nomination. Corvus cornixtalk 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. A Google search for '"Catie Smith" dietology' comes up with a grand total of 56 hits. Only 9 hits for "American dietology". Seems like self-promotion. Corvus cornixtalk 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 23:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure creationist. Only claim to fame is to being the secretary of the likewise-obscure Daylight Origins Society -- itself under AfD. The article currently cites no third party sources, and the majority of the sources it does cite only make trivial mention of the topic. HrafnTalkStalk 04:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This master is whipping the slave into oblivion. seicer | talk | contribs 00:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NM, non-notable song. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 03:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. "Online newsletter for the southwest of England". Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I didn't finish the AfD process - now it's up. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future technology, not out yet, no good sources that reference it as imminent, poss advertising? Fr33kmantalk APW 03:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Snow'ed in Houston. Completely unencyclopedic article. seicer | talk | contribs 00:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly messy, just a table and a few words. This article is not very useful to many users. I suggest move it to Hurricane Ike. Jer10 95 Talk 03:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Frasier. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable show location. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. BJTalk 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no actual term called "Xiphoid" to reference wirstblades and its variations. The term is simply an idea of a few people in a forum and thus is not widespread enough to have an article of its own. In the dictionary, Xiphoid appears as: 1. "Shaped like a sword, ensiform." and 2. "Of, or relating to the xiphisternum."
The article provides interesting, even useful, details about a pop-culture phenomenon. Currently, there is no wikipedia article for "Wristblades". If the only objection is the name, then I'd suggest simply retitling the current article as "Wristblade", with a possible redirect from "Xiphoid" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.4.152 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that this truck is notable per WP:N. While the series it races in may be notable, that doesn't extend to this individual truck. Cf. also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avenger (truck) (2nd nomination). B. Wolterding (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable band. The entire article is an unverifiable timeline. Tavix (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Subject lacks WP:RS, probable failure of WP:BAND. Movingboxes (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article fails WP:BIO and is a borderline speedy deletion candidate anyway. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on non-notable brother of a famous journalist. Since notability is not contagious, the subject doesn't qualify in his own right. Subject is cited in the article as founding a company, but that company's own extensive article doesn't mention him at all. Prod removed with the edit summary "notable" and no other commentary. RGTraynor 14:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. We'll call this one a snowball close. Mmm, hoaxalicious. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. You would think that if an album sold nearly 3 million copies, there would be some mention of it on the Internet. Corvus cornixtalk 02:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close withdrawn, nac. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable bridge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Meets WP:N and WP:BIO standards. Consensus was keep (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Bio#Politicians. There is no assertion of notability other than she is a council member. Consensus is that being a member of a city council is not in itself reason enough for an article on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 02:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable autobiography from a user with a blatant conflict of interest. Themfromspace (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album that never was... Not only are we not a crystal ball, but we don't keep articles on subjects that never even happened... completely lacking in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, there is no way this article can survive. One or two en passant mentions in interviews does not a reliable source make, especially when the scheduled release was two years ago, and never occurred. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:MUSIC. One of many articles by an overzealous new editor.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a neologism. There is not wide acceptance of this term in the engineering community. The "coining" of the term by one civil engineering professor does not establish notability. Wikipedia should not be a place to further establish a neologism. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus seems to have been reached on the article's talk page that the references used in this article are shamefully bad, and have no place being used as serious citations of fact. Aside from poor references, the whole article seems to be just a fork of Health care reform or Health care in the United States used to air a laundry list of criticisms of certain healthcare systems. The article throws out lists of poorly cited theoretical arguments, treats them as fact, and then fails to analyze, discuss, or so much as qualify them.
These things add up to make a very biased, unreliable, not to mention unencylopedic article. It seems to me that this article is of poor enough quality that it would be better not to have it than to have it in it's present form. After being tagged for these issues for a period of over a year, it doesn't seem like it is going to be fixed.
This is all aside from the fact that this entire topic is covered by Health care reform in the United States, in more depth and with better sources I might add. So this article's entire existence is repetitive. – Vikingviolinist (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Noteworthy topic with serious implications. Ombudsman (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little notability that is not trivial (a mention in the Denver Post) is all I can find. There are no independent reliable sources with which I can verify the information. Also, the page reads like promotional material. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. notability and verifiability concerns addressed. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to indicate this is a notable savory dish. In addition, it remains unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep- it only has 2500 mentions in newspapers [43] , 724 in books [44] and 938 in scholarly works.:) [45]. We have many, many food stubs such as Macaroni soup and Cheese pudding and thhe hundreds of others. I don't mean 'other stuff exists' but that it's an acceptable type of article. I could find sources, maybe I'll put some in, but I spent hours working on the two articles mentioned because no-one else bothered. Why do people want to bring foods to AfD, especially when they haven't even looked to see if WP:RS existed themselves, as for this there are hundreds, or (shock) add a reference themselves? Do I have to spend hours on a food stub again like I did on the two I mentioned? It's not very exciting you know- maybe people could try it instead of bringing these to AfD.:) Sticky Parkin 18:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment -I have now added eight references to the article, including ones from the New York Times, the New Statesman and the British Medical Journal. Sticky Parkin 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Pumpin' House thing does not exist. I've never heard of it. It's not real and there are no sources to prove its existence. Delete it. Fclass (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. could have been speedied earlier as blatant copyvio. Cirt (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability, and is unverified. seresin ( ¡? ) 01:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]