The result was keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedy-deleted as advertising; now rewritten more neutrally, but still doesn't seem to be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speed deletion of the original article was appropriate, however if the current article meets the criteria for neutral tone, it should stand for notability. In addition to serving more than 40,000 walkers per year, Big Onion appears in newspaper listings in all major New York papers, it is listed in all the guide books for New York City, and it receives press coverage in the major travel magazines as well as in syndicated newspapers (a story in last year's Hartford Courant was reprinted in dozens of American newspapers and at least one major newspaper in Australia). It is a New York institution on par with many of the city's small museums (some of which have Wikipedia pages) and is a subject of interest to visitors to New York from around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.244.217 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G11 just as afd opened. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability offered, no references, no wiki links. Appears to be a company ad. Alice (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a clear WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Creator requested time to improve this article but nothing happened the last 4-5 months. Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete with no prejudice against recreating as a redirect Nancy talk 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable song, only available via iTunes (see WP:MUSIC). Contested proposed deletion - deletion notice removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Boom shakalaka haters, the song CHARTED! yall biggie hating brothas[3]--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bagpipe performer. Neither a Google nor a Google News search turns up adequate sources to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In repsonse to Pastor Theo (talk), type into google "Dan DelMain" and the fourth link which pops up is a link to *Portland Bagpiper, showcasing a history and recorded songs. Also, the previous links take you to the *Bagpiper.com website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelmain (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may also reference *Dan DelMain | Portland Metro Pipe Band which has a link back to the *Dan DelMain | Wikipedia article
--Dandelmain (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Dan_DelMain[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This song does assert notability as being a charted single in two countries by two very notable artists (although I can't verify the German chart positions), but I have been unable to find any non-trivial coverage regarding the song itself. The only sources I could find that even mentioned the song said nothing about it other than "it's a duet on the album", thus leaving this song without any individual notability. I have tried twice to redirect to the album as WP:NSONGS dictates ("articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album") but have been undone by editors who apparently think that chart singles are inherently notable. As this AfD shows, it is very possible for an article about a charting single by a notable artist to be deleted. Given that there's absolutely nothing to say about this song besides "it barely scraped the country charts and LeAnn Rimes sang on it", I think that the article should either be deleted, or redirected and protected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. per NALBUMS; as was pointed out below, exclusivity actually makes them less notable. There may be a rationale for including them as a one-line mention in the artist's own articles, but that's it. Black Kite 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable iTunes exclusive releases. No non-trivial coverage for any of these albums, which are only digital "albums" anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Andermani Empire. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely unreferenced in-universe plot summary with no assertion or hint of notability -- soundly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS, WP:GNG. Being marked for cleanup for more than a year has yielded only tweaks to insignificant trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is not enough content to justify the existence of the article. Recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted because the lack of notability and this one is no different. All written here can easily be merged in the Foreign relations articles for either of the countries. Tone 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable. The external links, presumably provided as references, have no context within the text of the article itself to prove why these events, or such relations in the first place, are notable in the history of either nation (WP:NOTNEWS). The scant information present in the article could just as easily be merged into Foreign relations of Greece or Foreign relations of Jamaica, both listed in the article's "See also" section. It is further difficult to conceive of any information for this article that would not be more suited to these other articles, or to a history article or section on these two countries. If anything, this article simply impedes users from finding appropriate information by being an extraneous article. Furthermore, this article was previously deleted as non-notable and subsequently restored summarily without deletion review. [5] BlueSquadronRaven 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity autobiography of non-notable singer. Subject has himself been promoting the autobiography, and has removed the proposed deletion notice. (His "references" include self-published "Myspace" page. The two mentions in Daily Star's kids magazine has surprisingly similar text, and possibly the same article recycled twice. Other than that, no mention in mainstream media. There is also a big conflict of interest, with the subject himself adding to his own autobiography. Ragib (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tran5par3ncy (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Seems that certain notability is established. Still, the article needs a heavy cleanup but AfD is not a place to discuss this. Tone 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a robot on the TV series Robot Wars. Some of the more notable robots, such as series winners, have entries, but this one did not achieve any success. The article is merely a list of contests summarised from the Robot Wars website. Black Kite 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable digital EP exclusive to iTunes. Part of the Live from SoHo compilation whose parent article was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term unsourced BLP that appears to fail WP:BLP1E. BLP cleanup - I am neutral.Black Kite 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating: :Fred Mattlage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to verify this article's contents per a regular Google search, let alone Google News and Google Books. I also tried some alternate spelling without success. Now even if sources do exist that are not turning up on Google, the fact that only the Wikipedia article turns up on Google suggests that the claim this is a "famous" saint cannot be true, because famous people get multiple hits, no? Anyway, multiple editors have prodded or posted speedy delete templates as suspected hoax as well and as such it is probably worth while having a more definitive discussion rather than back and forth speedy delete templating and prodding. A NobodyMy talk 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this article meets the notability requirements, per WP:BAND. Chzz ► 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. as withdrawn - unsourced BLP now sourced - nice work folks. Black Kite 11:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP has been practically unsourced since 2006 and is of dubious notability. BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90.242.160.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. Article improved (from one sentence!!) and nom withdrawn Black Kite 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sourced not notable. Was going to speedy for patent nonsense but it does seem to exist so its their for not nonsense I guess. Also included is a redirect page to the main 'article' Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable. The external links, presumably provided as references, have no context within the text of the article itself. The scant information present in the article could just as easily be merged into Foreign relations of the Holy See, Foreign relations of Yemen and Diplomatic missions of the Holy See. It is further difficult to conceive of any information for this article that would not be more suited to these other articles, or to a history article or section on these two countries. If anything, this article simply impedes users from finding appropriate information by being an extraneous article. BlueSquadronRaven 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous lack of notability Truthbanks12345 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G12 as the salvageable part would still be eligible under A7. —Admiral Norton (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP since 2006. Notability appears to be lacking, at best unclear. I am neutral. Black Kite 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advert, product virtually unknown Truthbanks12345 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Havin been significantly improved in many ways in a collaborative manner,result is now keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being the former president of a Student's Association does not make one notable, nor does working for Greenpeace. Contested prod, for some ill-defined reason. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Internet radio station. Now closed, Was it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ty 00:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.61.242 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable concept, no references provided. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appeared in the hoax category and I feel it needs some discussion. The article comes across as someone trying to create a new music genra rather than discuss an established one. I have only been able to find a small lastfm group about the topic. Wasted Oompa-Loompa (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to John Randolph of Roanoke. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article exists largely as a refutation to a flash-in-the-pan claim that Randolph was a Muslim. The notion is below even fringe, as it seems to be the politically excitable overinterpreting a slightly dubious statement; the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. What we have in the referenced article is gross overkill, a mixture of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The truth seems to be that Randolph's conversion experience in 1818 wasn't really notable; it occupies about ten pages of a seven hundred page biography which itself consists largely of quotations from Randolph's letters. I have already salvaged what I think is of importance and included it in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Metallica discography. Tone 16:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page meets Wikipedia’s criteria for deletion because article is about a “virtual” boxed set that does not (and never will) exist in the physical world. This article is just a list of all of Metallica’s studio albums and other releases, and duplicates what is already listed in the Metallica discography article. WP:CRYSTALBALL also applies as the digital collection has not yet been released by iTunes, who is its only distributor. Esasus (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (No Consensus) Cheers. I'mperator 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (No Consensus) Cheers. I'mperator 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (No Consensus) Cheers. I'mperator 23:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists primarily of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists primarily of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tour that only consists of setlists and fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unsourced concert. I hardly believe that there is any reason for a single concert to have an entire article on Wikipedia this side of something like Woodstock. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy/SNOW keep. Nomination withdrawn after article was improved DGG (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable group with no sources cited that would suggest notability. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - nice rescue! Nancy talk 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artist with no evidence of notability: a Google News search for "Katie Holten" produces no hits. The article appears to be solely the work of a single-purpose account and one other account named after her current publicity agency, and the ((notability)) and ((primarysources)) tags which I added nearly a year ago were promptly removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Training Institute — Closed as Withdrawn by nominator
|
---|
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Timothy Training Institute[edit]
PROD contested, so I'm taking this to AFD. Non-notable group. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Ok, so I have edited the page and included even more info-but I still don't know what would make this page, to be "approved". Why would a page, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Doors be considered, when the creator didn't even add one reference, yet when I include more info and add references, the page is still flagged for deletion. I accept the fact that you have guidelines and if my page gets deleted, that's fine, but Im having trouble in understanding why...especially when I compare it to other pages...Is it perhaps a matter of private interpretation? Kevincarldavis (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. The general consensus is that the subject is not notable enough to sustain an article. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another pair of countries with only a tenuous connection between them. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded, article which had already been prodded, so it needs to come to afd. reason for prod was that it is an "Unsourced article about a non-notable organization. Their claim to fame is that they will be organizing a festival, but the festival hasn't happened yet and has no evidence of being notable itself. The article could be seen as promotional." I can't turn anything up myself either. Hiding T 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article primarily consists of incoherent plot details Is unreferenced and based on this Google Search it appears referencing it is not possible. I also found no evidence any of the Robert Allens on the dab page wrote this. Delete as unverifiable. Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Day & Age. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this is being released as a single seems to be solely based on the playlist of a radio station. I can find no confirmation from other reliable sources or from the band or their record label. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NSONGS. JD554 (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete : This single has been reported to be the next Killers single by two leading radio stations (Absolute Radio & BBC Radio 1). However, it should specify that has been no confirmation from the band itself. Also it now seems very likely that this is their next single. <span class="autosigned (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
entirely OR, no sources, it's essentially a short essay with no encyclopedic content, I don't see how it could be salvaged. Beach drifter (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete. Fails WP:V; probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claims to notability - possibly a speedy delete based on lack of source I could find through Google (ie none), though Google searches difficult because of other films etc with the samename, and no director or actors given in the article. Brought here for your consideration Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking this to AfD as a formality. This article was created by an annoying spammer who filled the majority of the article with unsourced and potentially libellous claims of personal information. These have now been removed, but not before the original poster was blocked from editing. The remainder of the article is OK on the BLP front, but it's unclear whether the subject of the article is actually notable, and since the only person who clearly wants the article is the person who got blocked for making libellous claims, it's unclear whether anyone actually wants this article, nor is it clear whether the subject is actually notable. I put a prod on the article to see if anyone wanted to keep it, and it got deleted as part of an edit, but as there was no explanation it's unclear whether this was an intentional contestation. I'd quite like a decision one way or the other. I don't see the purpose in keeping an article that no-one wants, but other than that, I don't have any views one way or the other. (If it is kept, however, I would recommend that the original article is deleted from the history.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An in-universe description that doesn't say what universe it's from? I'm not sure what this is. The only references to the "TLoK Dex" it mentions is from a handful of forums. JaGatalk 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Evidence surfaced. Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article deleted already because the film was in pre-production and failed WP:NFF. It was recreated by the original author, this time claiming the film is in post-production. Speedy deletion as G4 was declined because this article is different from the original. Delete because (a) according to its own website the film is still in pre-production so still fails WP:NFF, (b) the article has no third party references, and (c) the article is a copyviolation and/or spam because the plot section is a copy of the film's own website Wiki0708 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blogger, self-published author with no evidence of notability. Chonak (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Nancy talk 06:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erk. The tagger could be right, but as a cultural sensitivity thing, I'm really uncomfortable db-spamming Iraqi public works projects. Let's discuss at AfD. 3 admins who are very active in CSD work have all edited the article previously, and none of them tagged it for speedy deletion. There are 3 companies mentioned in this article, and it's certainly possible that the intent was promotional, but none of those 3 companies get more than one sentence of mention. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep for now, but move to Portal:Baseball as suggested below. There's little consensus in this AfD, but the information would be far better organised and accessed from the baseball portal that sitting randomly about in articlespace. Black Kite 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR: this is "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", there is no reason why a certain day in baseball is notable (baseball is notable, a day is notable in a way, but the combination isn't. That someone was born on day X in 1893 and someone else died on the same day in 1974 is completely irrelevant and has not received widespread attention, there is no actual link between the two events except the double coincidence of baseball plus day. I'll also nominate all other day in baseball articles in this AfD, the reason is the same for all of them of course. Fram (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated: February 7 in baseball, February 8 in baseball, February 9 in baseball, February 10 in baseball, February 11 in baseball, February 12 in baseball, February 13 in baseball, February 14 in baseball, February 15 in baseball, February 16 in baseball, February 17 in baseball, February 18 in baseball, February 19 in baseball, February 20 in baseball, February 21 in baseball, February 22 in baseball, February 23 in baseball, February 24 in baseball, February 25 in baseball, February 26 in baseball, February 27 in baseball, February 28 in baseball, February 29 in baseball
March 1 in baseball, March 2 in baseball, March 3 in baseball, March 4 in baseball, March 5 in baseball, March 6 in baseball, March 7 in baseball, March 8 in baseball, March 9 in baseball, March 10 in baseball, March 11 in baseball, March 12 in baseball, March 13 in baseball, March 14 in baseball, March 15 in baseball, March 16 in baseball, March 17 in baseball, March 18 in baseball, March 19 in baseball, March 20 in baseball, March 21 in baseball, March 22 in baseball, March 23 in baseball, March 24 in baseball, March 25 in baseball, March 26 in baseball, March 27 in baseball, March 28 in baseball, March 29 in baseball, March 30 in baseball, March 31 in baseball
April 1 in baseball, April 2 in baseball, April 3 in baseball, April 4 in baseball, April 5 in baseball, April 6 in baseball, April 7 in baseball, April 8 in baseball, April 9 in baseball, April 10 in baseball, April 11 in baseball, April 12 in baseball, April 13 in baseball, April 14 in baseball, April 15 in baseball, April 16 in baseball, April 17 in baseball, April 18 in baseball, April 19 in baseball, April 20 in baseball
And if someone wonders, as far as I can tell, we have no similar articles for other "in X" categories in the mainspace (many in portals, but that is something different of course). Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed slightly early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As many recent precedents indicate (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations for just one), the mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable, and that is what we have here. That the Canadian government calls these relations "excellent" is nice, but what else do we expect for two countries on opposite sides of the world, one of which has "Peace, order and good government" as its guiding principles, and the other of which is a handful of mountain hamlets in an area 2½ times the size of Washington, DC? A war? Biruitorul Talk 06:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have articles on idioms? Anshuk (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial product: the only reference to the product itself (rather than the active ingredient, for which WP already has an article) is from a press release by the company selling the product. The protein the product is based on is notable, and the research relating to it is notable, but the product itself does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. This is basically advertisement disguised as an article. MuffledThud (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several reasons for deletion:
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was prodded, deleted, and restored upon request. It should be deleted again. Many recent AfDs have found that the mere existence of bilateral relations is not notable; see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations. The only significant diplomatic interaction between these two has been surrounding Kosovo, and that's amply covered here. Nothing else in the relationship exists that is notable (they don't even have embassies), so the article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was considered for speedy deletion, but subsequently passed after copyrighted material from the official website of the subject was included. I removed copyrighted material but put every reliable source I could find in the article. I believe the article still fails notability for both music and academics. Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the page in question:
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with nom. If this is allowed, then every attempt to get into the Guiness Book will be wiki worthy, and as far as I am concerned, that shouldn't happen. If and when the record is broken, the article can be revisited. Postcard Cathy (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both on notability and on advertising. Joe407 (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of entirely unreferenced indiscriminate fictional items. Although there are some cleanup issues which don't factor in the nomination, it still completely fails Wp:N and WP:V. While some parts of the article may be verifiable via the manga itself, I find it unlikely there are any third party reliable sources to show notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the information in this article is already contained in the main Russian apartment bombings article. There are also POV issues here, and in my opinion this article reads like a POV fork. Offliner (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. MBisanz talk 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is already covered by the Black British article. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is for either deletion or merging, butthere is no agreement at all as to where it should be merged. Overall, the supporters of deletion have the strongest arguments here. Fram (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unencyclopedic topic which is a violation of Wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information. At the same time, all of the citations are to the bible itself, so it consists entirely of original research. Redirect is needless since it doesn't seem like a likely search term, and nothing to merge since there is no sourced information The Seeker 4 Talk 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism done by AutisticMonk talk
Note from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." If there's bias, let's fix it. --Timlight (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I was researching my !vote for this, I couldn't help noticing that similar content appears in other wikipedia articles for other Bible versions (e.g. Masoretic Text), so there's probably a case for expanding this AfD to include other Bible-related trivia.
It all probably does have a place in some wiki that's specific to the Abrahamic religions, so I'd support a transwiki if anyone knows of one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn following rewrite by TerriersFan. The original article was on a single school, rather than the district as a whole. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy closed - duplicate nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Only reason given was "rm silliness." One side doesn't even have an embassy. No real relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Khazars. MBisanz talk 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Website of little or no notablity. There are no reliable sources, and this may be an advertisement without them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable film who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the general principles of WP:MOVIE. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, recently restored. Not a notable album, as it was never released. Sources only trivially mention the album, and any relevant material should be covered at Foxy Brown. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this encyclopedic? Recently created at various wikiprojects so also a promotion attempt. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnIt. Simeon (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, this article also does not contain any proper references, does not establish any notability, and seems to be a directory of various ensembles around the country. Probably WP:LISTCRUFT too (as pointed out by an editor on the similar AFD). The references section at the bottom of the article says that it is "based on a directory", which is a blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR. Eugene2x►talk 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 10:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this encyclopedic? Recently created at various wikiprojects so also a promotion attempt. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnItME. - Simeon (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to the hammer wielding otter (see below). The nomination should have read: "This article is a battleground between two rival proponents of something or other and appears to be references to their papers and a massive episode of COI. I'm wholly unsure that the article is about something that even should be here, nor whether it is notable, verifiable or anything else. The whole thing is masked by two editors who seem to be having a pissing contest. And yes, I am doing my best to assume good faith!
I think we need to discuss the topic and its notability and verifiablity and reach a consensus on keep/delete. This AfD may fire the necessary warning shot across the two contestants' bows, and we may end up with an encylopaedic article as a result. or no article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously this is the wrong title, since there's no one single protocol. But I strongly suspect that there's enough source material for a breakout sub-article of Short Message Service#Vulnerabilities, dealing with research into the security vulnerabilities of SMS and the various security mechanisms that can be added to it, to be written. And we can get there from here by renaming this article and editing it, mercilessly. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Swami Sahajanand Saraswati. Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability. Google search returns some results and only one appears related to the subject of this article. See this and this. From the style of writing used, I also suspect that the article could be copyvio. The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Needs cleanup expansion and sourcing or else it will be back (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, non-notable actress, bit-player is not notable. MBisanz talk 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't agree with absolute deletion, perhaps a move somewhere into the Hollyokas main page or minor/recurring characters would be better?--D-Weaving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable iTunes exclusive. No reliable sources found, fails notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any reliable secondary sources that mention this writer. Fails to meet any of the general notability guidelines. The page does read more like a personal bio. Bluecup182 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me there are a list of reliable secondary sources in the footnotes including the Guardian newspaper, the Bookseller (the major publishing trade magazine in the UK) and the BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.245.122 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article for deletion as it seems to be a very clear case of WP:BLP1E. ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters, Ephraim Shapiro is not a living person. He has been deceased for 20 years. The nom's only policy cited as a rationale for deletion is WP:BLP1E, a subsection of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is a policy written for dealing with living people. Also, articles about this case went on for months, probably over a year. They involved not just he subject, but also his son and other suspects. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations of child-abuse are serious, and need to be well-sourced if they're to remain. In this case they are well-sourced: the guy was convicted and the convictions were reported in newspapers, and the reports are linked. There's not much left to discuss except the level of detail the article should go into, and AfD doesn't prescribe that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Holiday Extras. MBisanz talk 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airport offsite parking operator that has no notability independent of its parent company, Holiday Extras. All references are travel industry sites. Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:ADVERT. I tried re-wording to remove advert tone but there is little to no encyclopedic content worth salvaging. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because it is another non-notable operation of the same parent company written with a similar WP:TRAVEL tone:
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly unverifiable. Stripped of any guesswork, the article becomes "Operation Granite Shadow is the declassified code-name for a classified plan". Octane (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable iTunes-exclusive live EP with little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously PRODed article by an IP user, which was deleted by another IP user. Page is for a footballer who has never played at a fully-professional level, failing notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oi Leave our striker alone - hes fab and he will be playing for us next season and he will go on to play for England then all you twerps who wanted to delete him will look like you are a bunch of silly billies ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.204.228 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a historical personage, but actually just someone's fanciful imagination. This person never existed, not in history, not in fiction. (Not in Rafe de Crespigny's biographical dictionary of the Three Kingdoms period) In other words, a hoax created by someone who claims he knows "true history". Too bad it's never going to be verifiable. _dk (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of reliable coverage of this band. Google news provides no hits and no allmusic article. neon white talk 07:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEEVENT, The event itself received national coverage but this article focuses more on the event than the individual. Article is at this point completely unsourced. Mfield (Oi!) 05:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it horrible that you can say "not notable in any other way". Jeez - someone died. ALL human life should be celebrated ... are the 96 who dies at Hillsbrough notable .. they are all named on the page related to that disaster. Is someone more important if they die with lots of other people? If that;s the case where is the page listing the victims of the Nazi death camps? SICK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.252.87 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Film fails all of the notability criteria for films. This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere. A google search for "Fat Head" "Tom Naughton" reveals some coverage in blogs, but nothing that would satisfy the general notability requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a too early for an article now. Yilloslime TC 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First-time author whose book has been published but is not garnering much attention or high sales fails WP:CREATIVE. JaGatalk 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essay-formatted "paper". Completely the wrong tone and premise for a Wikipedia article. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zero evidence of notability. Resume comprises two minor acting parts and a middle management job at a major magazine. Mr. Darcy talk 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting in the correct section: There are several references to this player on the media. Such as:
Published CDs and DVDs: http://www.madeiramandolinorchestra.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=39
Performances in national and international broadcast television and radio. Performances with renowned Orchestras such as http://www.teatrolafenice.it/ Kabrinsky (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concert in Fashion Show at Amazonia - Changes to the MMO due to Fabio Machado's departure - Comments regarding Fabio Machado's playing and future - [83] - Regarding Fabio Machado and Norberto Cruz studies in Italy - Artists that represent the Madeira in other countries - Comments from Norberto Cruz - Machado performs Paganini - Fabio Machado and Norberto Cruz involvement with the MSA - Importance of the work developed - Mandolinist shines in Europe - Comparison - Fabio Machado's activity in Germany - "Young Talents" Kabrinsky (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does the scan of a different newspaper article constitute enough proof? And if so, where should such a scan be hosted, in Wikipedia, or any other website (is it totally irrelevant)? I think I might get such document. Kabrinsky (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable party game. Violates WP:NOT. Prod was removed for reasoning of basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In 2 years no sources have been added to the article to satisfy removal of the prod. A Gsearch [87] only turns up hits for a song and the memory card of the same name. twirligigT tothe C 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Fuse. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party sources given since it was created in 2006. Had borderline promotional content. Alexius08 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]