The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has remained unverified since 2007. News content referenced in discussion page is all local papers. Previously was candidate for speedy deletion.
Fails WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleaa (talk • contribs) 2009/12/16 01:48:39
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A 'haunted place' in Japanese urban legend - according to a single unreliable looking book. Definitely doesn't meet notability guidelines. Fences&Windows 23:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 23:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that some clever and successful "hacking" is taking place to the benefit of Senator Murray, and to the ultimate damage of Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable information source. All of the references to Senator Murry's potential opposition seem to be effectively disabled or besmirched. I have found nothing equivalent when reviewing Democratic opponents to Republican incumbents. Is it Wikipedia's goal to allow 'contributors' or commenters to drive away half of the US population from its pages by permitting such drivel? These are postings of information about 'political' candidates, yet the commenters complain that articles are 'promoting' the candidate? Do they expect a candidate to post articles demeaning themselves or besmirching their own character. Of course not. This is a cheap way to deprive the public of information, which seems contrary to the very essence of Wikipedia.
The elimination of all bias destroys all information. The hiding of bias "in the name of fairness" is the worst form of deception.— Alkem7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deprodded both and brought them here (early in the process) because while notability isn't inherited, I imagine some people might object to these being deleted. There are sources but it's a question of the historical context which I'm not well qualified to answer in this case.
I also deprodded/nominated Kaspar Anton Karl van Beethoven
Please comment separately for each individual Shadowjams (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased film which fails WP:CRYSTAL and isn't even listed in IMDb. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album made primarily for Girl Scouts. An earlier PROD was contested. Wolfer68 (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deprodded both and brought them here (early in the process) because while notability isn't inherited, I imagine some people might object to these being deleted. There are sources but it's a question of the historical context which I'm not well qualified to answer in this case.
I also deprodded/nominated Johanna van Beethoven
Please comment for each individual separately Shadowjams (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cmy opinion remains as keep, and that he is sufficiently notable in his own right for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
The result was redirect to Climate ethics. Clear consensus, reaffirmed after the rewrite, is that the article is unsuitable for inclusion. Consensus appears to be that climate responsibility should not be a red link, so redirect is the logical outcome here. If anyone thinks there are sourced, policy-compliant material to merge, it may be recovered from the page history. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of one author framing a debate in his own image rather than writing a reference article. Wikipedia is not a forum or soapbox. No original research. Wikipedia is not a link farm. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Enough said. I have NO investment in this page being at Wikipedia, and you could remove it pronto, if you wish. m MaynardClark (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research, term does not exist in google scholars or books. Source cited has no quote or reference and looks like a primary source (a lexicon). Russian, Sassanid, Abbassid,etc. empires have never been associated with such terms. GoshtaspLohraspi (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reference No.1: The sentence is exactly copy/pasted from the Persianate society article, but the reference is AlKashgari pont of view that is only limited to turkish Langueges.
Reference No. 2&3 are only external links, not references.
Reference 4(=5), can be against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.(however, to be honest it can be acceptable on the other hand.)
Reference No.6 says: some scholars believes that presence of prototurk peoples in Middle East goes back to six thousands years ago.; But reference include the name of only one person that is only a Poet (not a historian), who falsely claimed Sumerian are ancestors of Turks.(see:Olzhas Suleimenov,Sumerian language)
Reference No.7: It's claimed that Tegriism has affected the zoroastrianism. but this is mentioned in the reference.(see Tengriism&Zoroastrianism)
Detailed information is available in the discussion page of the article. Aliwiki (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Near even spilt, with neither side enjoying a clear advantage. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the prod was contested, so i am nominating this for deletion. the 'internet phenomenon' appears to be non notable, as it lacks third party, reliable sources. the current sources are either irrelevant to the internet phenomenon, or not reliable sources. notability has simply not been established. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
comment the 'internet phenomenon' was renamed to 'suffix': 21:03 (Move log) . . Cyclopia (talk | contribs) moved Zilla (Internet phenomenon) to -zilla (suffix), i suppose in an attempt to make the article match the only semi relevant sources. this is still not worthy of inclusion on wikipedia Theserialcomma (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Copyrighted and trademarked names are ephemeral. Dozens can be produced during a week and they can disappear as fast as they are produced. English words are produced by acceptance by a significant portion of English language speakers. Trademarked and copyrighted names are not translated from English into French or Italian when they are part of a translated text, because they are not part of the English language in the first place. There are two common nouns referred to in "Verbivore's Feast: Second Course" which are claimed to use a suffix -zilla. Both of them neologisms. Momzilla is used to mean a mother who has a quarrel with the father and refuses to see him on this website[[3]]. In "Verbivore's Feast: Second Course" it is claimed to mean the mother of bridezilla. There are many well established English language suffixes such as -able, aceous, -ment and -pathy which do not have their own Wikipedia articles because they are not particularly notable. They are documented in most of the English language dictionaries ever written, but that does not make them notable. They are only ordinary suffixes. The much less established -zilla used in a couple of dubious words does not deserve an article. According to WP:NOT#NEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." My vote is still delete.--Fartherred (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. It is consistently the case that Wikipedia deletes articles about proposed ballot propositions without sufficient signatures to make it to the ballot, and does so even when the proponents are far more serious than these are, regardless of the degree of news coverage. If this ever gets on the ballot, then the article can be restored. If it doesn't, a wacky news story that happened to be mentioned in the "Isn't this strange" news a few times isn't encyclopedic. THF (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to autofocus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable photographic related definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prod removed by User:Phil Bridger with note of "Contest deletion. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this is not a dictionary definition." however it seems clear to me that it is in, indeed, a dictionary definition with no notability as a topic itself that would not already be covered in autofocus or camera in general. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local disc jockey, article does not meet standards of WP:ENTERTAINER, largely relies on primary sources and forum postings for references, only coverage in reliable sources appears to be of a recent move from one daypart to another. Dravecky (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The web page for the station has not been edited to reflect the change but will shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.136.26 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable product. There don't appear to be any sources independent of the manufacturer that establish notability. Proposed deletion was removed by the original author. The article also makes claims that are not supported medical science: homeopathy is recognized as pseudoscience and Wikipedia shouldn't be making such unfounded claims. My attempts to remove these claims from the article were also reverted by the article's sole author. Deli nk (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Billybluesky (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)--[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Wknight94. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally tagged this article for G3 as a hoax. At the time, it contained a line stating "No transportation is given, most students just fly on their Pidgeots." After a hangon template was added, I had a brief conversation on the article's talk page with the creator, who insists that its a real school. They linked to this source to verify that. Besides the fact that the source looks made up to me, does anyone else think of Pokemon when the competitors names are Ash and Gary? In my opinion, this is still a speedy delete case, but I thought with the claim from the creator, it should go to AFD for that decision. Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP should be deleted per WP:NOTINHERITED. It is obvious from the content of the article that his only achievement is being part of a famous family. Angryapathy (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Breaks Wikipedia is not a Travel guide guideline. No references other than its own site and does not satisfy general notability guidelines. Grim23★ 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign dicdef. A Polish slang term, with no currency in English language - Altenmann >t 18:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable neologism, primarily used by one company, whose press release is the sole cited reference. PRODed by me (as an IP), and prod removed by article creator. This is a recently created article, but a Google search reveals no helpful references or information to expand or improve this article, or demonstrate notability of the term. Most Google hits are to uses that do not match the sense in this article, which seems to confirm that this sense is not notable. DES (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable structure of undefined purpose WuhWuzDat 18:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of meeting WP:BIO, only had two minor roles listed in IMDB, can't vertify nothing else Delete Secret account 18:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable racing team, whose greatest accomplishment seems to be a recent string of failures WuhWuzDat 17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the material in this article is attributed to secondary sources, and no secondary sources analyze this plot element of a science fiction series. Relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines that support deletion of this topic include WP:OR, WP:PSTS, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N. Merging is not necessary, since all material that has secondary sources (and some that has only primary sources) can be found in Catherine Asaro#Saga of the Skolian Empire series. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. There is no such team in the Conference South, or indeed in any other notable football league. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP Ronhjones (Talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been deleted before and the new page has the same issues as the last one, namely, it does not cite any references or sources, the use of peacock terms and has failed to demonstrate notability. It still gives her no better claim to notability than "Jewish American woman who converted to Islam".Codf1977 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - WITHDRAWN - It is clear that the article now meets the requirements, thanks to Abecedare and since no one has objected, I see no reason to prolong this.Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previously deleted article. Notability tag has been on for a couple of weeks, but still little to show he meets WP:Notability (people). Prod was removed. Boleyn3 (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a concert production company that does not appear to meet general notability, or specific notability for companies. There are no reliable sources writing about Bill Silva Entertainment that I was able to find. The article was marked for notability and sourcing but the tags have been removed with no actual sourcing provided. The article lists many notable artists whom they have booked but notability is not inherited. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the requirements for notability but I am somewhat confused as to how to cite my sources for this article. While some of the information was obtained online, most of it was found in an in depth interview with Bill Silva from Pollstar's "2009-2010 Talent Buyer DIrectory". Pollstar is an esteemed source in the music and concert promotion industry, but this article cannot be found online.
How would I go about citing a directory? I have the publication but can find no publishing information. This business (Bill Silva Entertainment)has influenced the music business as whole from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Francisco to New York and it deserves to noted on Wikipedia. Please help me tie up the loose ends on this page so that it may remain on your server.
Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grizzleemusic (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — Grizzleemusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Ok, I have made some changes, please let me know what else I must do to prevent this important page from being deleted. Thank you.
Grizzleemusic (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)— Grizzleemusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is any more notability to be found for these guys, so let's delete them or take the tag off Polarpanda (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable software product. Author has COI issue. Was not able to find any significant third-party coverage, and article gives none. Haakon (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An obscure, self-published, nonprofessional Internet film critic whose sole claim to fame has been very brief praise from Roger Ebert a few years ago. The subject wrote a pair of equally obscure non-notable books that don’t meet WP:BK requirements. Google News searches only finds him cited among groups of critics rather than as a single authoritative entity – there is no single media profile of him to be found. The article fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR as well as WP:RS (nearly all of the article’s information comes directly from the subject’s self-published site). Warrah (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy declined per "software"-rule. Nothing found on google or elsewhere. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, did not play higher than in the Polish third division, and doesn't even have his own profile at www.90minut.pl. Silvermane (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable industrial designer. Declined A7 CSD. References in the article do not reflect reliable sources and I cannot find any to support assertions of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Also the article creator has a Conflict of Interest. Crafty (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's vandalism, this person advertising herself. She also added her name on other pages connected with kazakhs. This person never titled as Miss Kazakhstan 2007. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attila kz (talk • contribs) 2009/12/10 11:31:24
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a simple and non-notable tool. Completely unsourced article of three sentences. Miami33139 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has no confirmation or any references. They have not been confirmed and has nothing to do with the season as shown by the trailer. Beth is not in the season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dakotacoons (talk • contribs) 2009/12/13 18:40:49
Delete Only three episode titles have been released by a verifiable source and they, along with references, are listed in the parent article, Total Drama, The Musical. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 21:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the WP:GNG; Nothing worthwhile-looking on a search of google news and google books Polarpanda (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined. Have a look. Seemed like incomprehensible no context to me.... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsigned artist. 'Top 60 in NZ Pop Idol' is as close to notability as he gets. Delete TB (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be the first time I have ever nominated a page I created for deletion, but a degree of animosity toward the subject matter makes me think that perhaps the community would be the best judge of what to do with this page.
I split this off the Iowa class battleship page some time ago on WP:SIZE grounds; the Iowa article has grown to over 100kbs of info, and removing the bulk of the debate information from the reactivation section allowed for a more in depth analysis of the issues surrounding the gunfire debate stateside. Since then though I gotten a sense that people do not feel the article is needed on grounds that battleship will never come back. While that is in all probability correct, the fact remains that there are people who are unable or unwilling to let the battleship go. Type in battleship reactivation on google and you'll find any number of sites ranging from yahoo answers to military bluff blogs full of people ready to debate the points.
By the same token though if the battleships are not coming back then this article could be interpreted a number of different ways. It could be considered OR, it could be considered WP:NOT (INFO grounds), it could also be CRYSTAL from a certain perspective. The fact that most of the article outlines a debate that few if any care about combined with the fact that the information here could be summarized on both the Iowa class battleship article and Zumwalt class destroyer article makes we wonder if the article is still needed here (or if it was ever needed here in the first place.
That is why I am taking the advise of Hcobb (talk · contribs) to heart and nominating the page for deletion. What happens to it from here is entirely up to the community. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. "Remote Link Access Point" has two hits, neither relevant. Searches like "RLAP" "OSI layer 2" provide further evidence this is not notable (if it exists at all). Glenfarclas (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. per WP:SNOW and WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax - there is absolutely no news confirmation, and the image camera data shows that the photo was taken five years ago. JohnCD (talk) 10:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either a hoax, or just not notable, as I can find nothing whatsoever in the news or elsewhere about this purported event. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actor, does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDb does not list any credit whatsoever for The Blind Side or Remember the Titans, despite article's claim that he "starred" in them. Has a decent number of Google hits, though many seem to come from the same promotional machine. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a local family. PRODded and contested, subsequently changed family to "family name". Nothing in reliable sources to support anything in the article. People with the name exist, but that's all. Delete -SpacemanSpiff 07:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Craig Murray. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Known for being the mistress/girlfriend/wife of Craig Murray ; Relationships do not confer notability. As a budding actress she also fails WP:ENT. Rootless Juice (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to San Francisco Giants minor league players. Wizardman 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does appearing on a 40-man roster at one point make you notable? That is the question. He may or may not be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Alex (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW keep Pcap ping 21:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama, POV fork, unencyclopedic topic, BLP issue, as well as poor sourcing and OR. William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theres the axe-grinding i mentioned. But i will clarify- by 'well-written' i dont mean its perfect or at feature article status- but its good enough for the writing not to be an issue at all.Brunk500 (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's fairly highly regarded in the realm of trainers, but is a AAA trainer notable enough? I'm leaning towards no... Alex (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this is a very nice thing that people do, it is not notable. It seems to be a shill for Chabad sites. The sources cited are primary sources about the topic, not about coverage the topic has garnered. If it stays at all it should me a section under Menorah_(Hanukkah) Joe407 (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this means we may close this Afd per WP:SNOW. Debresser (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor actor, seems to have had one small role in a direct-to-video film (see [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3040366/ at IMDb). Does not meet WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one is probably a tough call to make. I am listing this for AfD because
a) The only sources given are the firms own website while the other links are dead (notabiliy?)
b) It reeks of self-promotion (spam?)
c) It has been the target of some rather obvious, possibly socking, SPAs (COI?) (see article's history)
Please give your opinions. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comic lacking Ghits and GNEWS. Originating editor removed PROD. ttonyb (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly WP:DICTIONARY Shazbot85Talk 03:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 01:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in the Majors, is not an inherently notable first-overall draft pick, and the article cites no other sources of notability or heavy amateur notability (outside, perhaps, PAC-10 Freshman of the Year, which is uncited). Staxringold talkcontribs 03:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. No one at Harvard Philosophy by this name. Only one Google hit besides this page for "An essay concerning objective morality", probably a post by the creator of this article. Probably speediable as a hoax; I prodded this in the name of assuming good faith (as it reads it's not blatantly a hoax), but the prod was declined, so here we are. Possibly a confusion with the writer and rabbi Yitzchak Goldstein, (someone has added a reference for him in the entry) but he's never been a Harvard philosopher either.Hairhorn (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nonnotable zimbabwe family name. Unsourced content about a handful of nonnotable individuals. Cannot even turn into a redirect or disambig page. - Altenmann >t 23:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Survivor: Fiji. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable person per WP:1E, this person did nothing notable outside of the Survivor Universe. Tavix | Talk 22:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor leaguer. Wizardman 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forum software with no independent sources, fails WP:GNG. --Zvn (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod declined (by two other editors). Searches reveal the primary sources, and a few things that appear to be press releases. A google news search finds two hits, one of which is a PR Newswire release (press release) and another is a robot building camp that uses the robots (I think). Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously PRODed article; PROD removed by what appears to be a sock of the creator; article does not establish notability and fails WP:CORP. —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable product WuhWuzDat 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:BAND. Notability of Atomic Rooster does not make this later band notable. If there is any unique information, it could be merged to John Du Cann. Ash (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN artist who fails WP:ARTIST. Both the DPRP award and the PROGaward are online, unscientific polls. The "Museum of Computer Art" is a web site where artists can self-publish their work. Toddst1 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
from Andy Tillison [Po90], [the Tangent]
Hello ED.
I do not think your page should be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not a member of Wikipedia and I have never contributed anything to the page. The article about my band The Tangent has been done by someone else, I do not know who, I do not like the article because I think it is far too long for a band of our status and far too anecdotal. It is not encyclopedic enough and should be far more factual
I have read the arguments involved and believe that the member Floydian is correct in protesting that DPRP polls etc are not invalid, as these polls have been established for at least a decade and require a certain amount of input from the user rather than a tick box system. The fact that this is not a TV poll like the X-Factor does not invalidate the importance thereof. As an industry worker I know that nearly all progressive rock musicians take a very serious view of the DPRP poll (it frightens me to hell!!). As the winners of this poll are likely to quote from it in advertising features in commercial magazines this does indicate a certain industry respect for the poll
I think the proposer of deletion is taking an attitude of "I've never heard of him or this poll, so why should it be on here"
I suggest that you contact member Floydian if you can. You may copy this mail to him. Although progressive Rock music's fortunes are nowhere near as well reported by mainstream media as they once were, my personal view is that your contribution to the current scene is well respected among the vast majority of those who follow the genre.
I am sorry that someone has taken this attitude against you. other than this mail of support, there is very little I can do. i think that for Wikipedia to delete your article wouod be detrimental to Wikipedias astonishing grasp on the variety of contemporary culture.
Andy Tillison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Unitsky (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond comprehensively this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.65.199 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local Scout unit. No sources, nearly no content. The claim "one of the oldest scouting clubs in South Korea" is unrealistic since Scouting was introduced to Korea in 1922; for details see Korea Scout Association. jergen (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author, per WP:CREATIVE. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No discussion for it's inclusion after 14 days. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though this term has been used in Romanian politics for some years, I couldn't find a reliable source to define it. The article has an external link to a self-published source giving a definition, but this definition differs from the one on the wiki in significant ways. The only thing that comes close to a source is the English translation of a magazine article which contains a Romanian psychiatrist's opinions on the typology of local barons. Alas, he has every elaborate theory about what causes something he doesn't bother to define, except vaguely as Nouveau riche.
The wiki article also had a boatload of WP:BLP violations added by anonymous users over the years, which I've removed version before. None of the source that could be checked even referred to those guys as local barons. So, this article is a libel magnet too. It's not too hard to find one Romanian editorialist or another call one politician or another "local baron", but as far as I can tell what they mean by that varies from one writer to another...
Now, the term baron (without "local") is defined in a 2007 Romanian slang dictionary to mean "member of the Social-Democrat Party that autocratically dominates the economical or political life of a city or county". But many journalists use it outside this context, so big YMMV if an article can be written without WP:OR at this time. I should add that even the Romanian Wikipedia doesn't have an entry on this topic (it should be at ro:Baron local) Pcap ping 11:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a band that does not met the general notability guidelines nor music notability guidelines. There are no reliable sources covering this band. Whpq (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following was posted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bonnington Truce and likely was meant to be on this page. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reasonably firm evidence that this forum is notable, and the article didn't come with any references. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonably famous techie website and forum in Malaysia. Outside of the country, only people accessing the website and forum are Malaysians living abroad. However, the article itself has been non-informational and has been vandalized again and again. I believe this article should be taken down until they learn what and what not to do with wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.50.44 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No discussion for it's inclusion after 14 days. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [24]. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. only 2 hits in gnews [25] which includes Finnish coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journalist. Notability is not established via independent third party sources. A google search (sans wikimirrors, facebook, blogs) shows only 244 hits). No third party coverage from reliable sources can be found on the subject's notability. Ragib (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Powers Lake, North Dakota, given the weight of the commentary from the non-SPA accounts. –MuZemike 17:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a cursory browse of Google reveals plenty of noteworthy stories about the church. Rosselfossil (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is notable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Though I would say the entries should all be sourced, at the list page, itself. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP violating uttery unreferenced list accusing people of being mobsters. Given that we already have Category:British mobsters, can we remove this list as a liability without an upside? Scott Mac (Doc) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. article looks like a resume. hardly any in depth third party coverage. [27]. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No rationale for a directoral merge, though a redirect can be created if desired Wizardman 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A film that seems to have had no impact on its release (not to be confused with the 2007 movie that actually has some ghits). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article containing hypothetical information and rumors about an album to be released at some unspecified point in the future. Not currently notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Municipal solid waste. SoWhy 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting subject, but this looks like someone copied and pasted an engineering paper. Wikipedia is not a textbook or a scientific journal. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Currently consensus is in favor of deletion but also in favor of allowing recreation once the subject became sufficiently notable. If someone wants to have it userfied or incubated, please contact me. Regards SoWhy 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was PROD'ed but the author removed the PROD claiming that Google will yield an image on IMDb; however, even with that, I believe it still fails the WP:NF guidelines as it has no good sources (IMDb is speculative) and it's full of WP:CRYSTAL (it's going to come out in 2010?). —Duncan (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Cman7792 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This film has information on online and in many newspapers, especially in connecticut. as the film gets closer to being released, more information on the film will be released as well. so for the time being, keep this article.[reply]
The result was keep. The only reason cited in favor of deletion was WP:LISTCRUFT which is an essay and as such does not reflect community consensus. Our deletion policy requires policy-based reasons for deletion though and such reasons have not been mentioned. As such the outcome cannot be anything else than keep (see also WP:ITSCRUFT for a longer explanation why simply saying something is "cruft", without further explanation based on policies and guidelines why this is a reason for deletion, is not a good argument in favor of deletion). Regards SoWhy 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cruft, akin to a article like "List of Saturday Night Live guests". A IP removed the PROD with no explanation. TJ Spyke 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is keeping the List of Authority Figures tidy by putting all of the participants into one entry and avoids the issue raised by TJ. Flyingcandyman (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TJ Spyke. Also the list is an orphan nothing really goes with it and you could just go on and on with this list and it's cruft. Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Add-on Also not really important.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? You're not making any sense.--Curtis23 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is overwhelming support for keep, and the deletion arguments are incredibly weak. LISTCRUFT is not policy, and the other arguments amount to asserting that it is trivial, ill-defined (people known due to their YouTube videos is not ill-defined), or preferring a category (lists and categories are not mutally exclusive). Fences&Windows 00:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "celebrity" is extremely subjective and is branded around left, right and center. This article appears to simply be a list of anyone who's appeared on YouTube and been called a celebrity by local newspapers, obscure websites, blogs etc. (Granted, some are from legit sources, but the majority fail WP:ONEEVENT and have a lack of multiple independent sources to warrent a mention). If a person is notable enough, they should have their individual article. Otherwise, this list should be deleted. WossOccurring (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet any of the notability criteria in WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. The previous nomination (back in 2006) ended as a keep for the sole reason that her books are available on Amazon, which is not a criterion for notability as far as I know. All the refs are her own work, and I can find no evidence that she has made a significant impact on higher education. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a non-notable neologism. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, offensive neologism Ironholds (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A bit of IAR here. I note a consensus to merge, however the material already exists at the merge target, and I am highly reluctant to leave a redirect from a business name that was really another victim Kevin (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Original rationale was, "Little Teds Nursery is not notable in itself. This article is just a WP:Coatrack for a child abuse case, that also does not seem to have wikipedia notability." SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by me! Fences&Windows 22:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to source this bio and I failed. She's been in a lot of TV and radio series, but I didn't find any sources about her even in passing. All I can find is mentions of her roles on websites. Fences&Windows 00:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY KEEP. The only reason why the article was nominated for deletion in the first place was because the nominator mistook a vandalised version for the real one. No arguments for deletion (or for anything other than keep, for that matter) have been presented. JIP | Talk 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No text or delete or add--Many baks (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination was erroneously written directly on the AfD listing, I've moved it here. I don't vote for anything here. JIP | Talk 06:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
((cite web))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help)