The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
For some reason there are two articles on the same person. Zero indication of notability. Notability is not inherited, and being a distant relative of Queen Elizabeth II does not mean you need an article. Reywas92Talk 23:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn - little bit of Afd on an unsourced bio and we get a sourced bio. I'm convinced that what we have now is sufficient. Good result all around - Peripitus (Talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Journalist's biography (written apparently by a relative) with no significant claim to notability. While the article mentions winning awards, I cannot see anything out there of great renown, and it does not specify which awards. Does not appear to meet the biographical notability standards Peripitus (Talk) 23:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable WP:neologism. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G3. I did not delete it immediately as a WP:HOAX based only on the judgment of one or two editors, but the consensus is now clear below so I don't think it's out-of-process to go ahead and delete after just two days. (Throw in a little bit of WP:IAR if necessary.) Frank | talk 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax article with no references. Google searches come up empty. Medical database searches are similarly devoid of hits, using both "cocktailphobia" and "cocktail phobia". No prejudice against inclusion if it turns out to be a real condition, but it has no references now and they so far have been elusive. At least two editors have tried to find them so far. Frank | talk 22:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Phoenix Games. Tone 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about a video game/cartoon? that fails to assert notability. The only reference given is a German-language site. Does not appear to have been reviewed by any major gaming websites. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to editors: THIS AFD article is about Champion Road 2. The first Champion Road by R.L. Scott was an underground flick released in 2008. The 2010 issue is its sequel. Use that correct title in your searches. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Not a single hit on Google. Pretty sure this totally made up by the author of the article. Ridernyc (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced unverifiable WP:BLP. There is an OTRS ticket, 2009122210065592, in which it is claimed that the correct name of this football player is "Adeseun Joseph Adekunle". My Google searches find no reliable source that confirms even the existence of this man under either name, although that may be because according to the article he has been active mainly in countries that do not use the Latin alphabet (Iran and China). Still, if we don't have a reliable source for this article, it needs to go per WP:BLP and WP:V. Sandstein 21:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Silvio Berlusconi. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article content is already present in the Silvio Berlusconi article, to which Massimo Tartaglia (with an uppercase T) already redirects. The article is therefore redundant. KaySL (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is basically nothing more than a vehicle for the mention of the package 'spatstat'. With that title, a reasonable article would risk becoming a how-to guide. Notability of both the software and the methodology is beyond question, but notability of the joint topic as the article is about is slim to none. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"He is currently the most eminent scientist in Europe"? Hm, I think not. I think he's a typical academic sociologist and not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close . Wrong forum. Will relist at FfD shortly. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible WP:OR image, part of a general discussion about the appropriateness of such images, and therefore inappropriate for main page, where it is currently featured. — Aldaron • T/C 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's a musician, played in some concerts. Not notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 20:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While this afd has more than 24 hours left on it, notability has been proven, and there are no outstanding delete votes; a near WP:SPEEDYKEEP. WP:NAC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this AfD. From Blanchardb's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do (along with re-adding copyrighted material)): "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases (like this one), readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Smartse's prod which was just removed by an IP (and marked as minor, too, which I think is wrong to do): I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable."" The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. I'm going to go and AfD a lot of the films now... (sighs) ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 20:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like advertising of a dinner auction. Momo san Gespräch 20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable 1 time event WuhWuzDat 19:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unsourced fictional plot element that is mere regurgitation of the work. Jack Merridew 19:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article continues to violate the WP:CRYSTAL principle, and has for many years now. Since the previous nom for deletion (which resulted in no consensus) several other editors have unsuccessfully attempted to prod the article, unaware of the prior discussions.
The title of the film varies almost as frequently as the release date (which is, as of now, "2009" for USA distribution-- only 9 days left, think they'll make it?) Its nice that someone wants to make a documentary about Wikipedia, there are lots of books about it after all, but this one doesn't look like it is ever going to happen.
If and when this movie is ever released we can write up a valid article about it then. JBsupreme (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- Wavelength (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Salih (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to SoCal VoCals. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual fails WP:MUSIC with a single, insignificant album released. Grsz11 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge & redirect to List of wildlife magazines NtheP (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable 16 year old rapper, references ripe with file sharing websites, myspace, twitter, and other unreliable sources WuhWuzDat 16:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable independent film with no reliable sources provided and none found. Google search lists no results at all. TNXMan 16:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable start-up publishing company that does not meet WP:CORP. A Google News search [25] turns up a few ghits for another company with the same name, thus adding WP:RS problems to the article. Warrah (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
---
"ronin press ronin press 2009. ... http://www.myspace.com/auralpoetry. copyright ronin press 2009. all rights reserved. site designed by owen calvert. www.roninpress.org/ - Cached"
I am extremely new at this, although I have used and respected wikipedia for years. I hope that with my amendments considered, I could keep the current (edited and neutral) revised listing I have presented to you. Thank you again for your consideration. Carnage0 (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A consensus is to delete this article. However, some parts may be incorporated into other articles, if content is needed, let me know. Tone 12:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page is bound to be a POV minefield, and the very notion of defining 'Armenian terrorism' in term of its targets is a pov projection. Wikipedia:Terrorist is a good reading in this context. Soman (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This term is used by many sourses[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] This type of terrorism was in history. So we must keep this article about very important subject to study.--Interfase (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 - no notability is indicated beyond "reports" that he "may" run for Governor of Mississippi in 2011. Per WP:POLITICIAN, that is not enough. Also, although the tone of the article is not overtly promotional, the WP:SPA author's username user:ProgressforMS makes it clear that it is posted for campaign purposes, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While this person will become notable if he runs for governor, he is not yet running. This article appears to have only been created for promotional purposes. Eeekster (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Regardless of WP:ATHLETE, consensus is that this person passes WP:BIO and is eligible for inclusion on that basis. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot see how this meets WP:ATHLETE. Boleyn3 (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy. This is a borderline case. WP:NMG, criterion #1 says: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." There seems to be one independent non-trivial mention: the Epoch Times article. WP:N is less specific about the number, saying only "Multiple sources are generally preferred."
COI has been an oft repeated argument on the deletion side, and the diffs cited about one of the authors' self-promotion do not inspire confidence. However, these lie over a year back, and the editor has done least 1000 edits since, so we can allow that to come under the statute of limitations. More pertinent is that the article itself contains peacock language, such as "made history", "skilled cartoonist" and "award-winning" (which has rightly been tagged as needing a reference), and lists unencyclopedic information, such as comprimario singers.
I therefore think the most appropriate resolution is to userfy. That will give the authors time to bring the article to encyclopedic standard, and allows for some time until there is more independent coverage. I applaud Brett Wynkoop for logging in under his real name, and for being very reasonable and honest in the discussion here, and I would like to keep him as an editor beyond this one article. To symbolically acknowledge this, I will move the article to user:Wynkoop/Brooklyn Repertory Opera. — Sebastian 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor company, page written by members of company (!); also, authors keep putting bogus entries into the "Singers who...." section SingingZombie (talk) 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable product. This product is just one of those "flash in the pan", "15 minutes of fame" type thing
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO; coverage is either minor, or from unreliable sources, or both. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable and sparsely covered news report is not suitable for a Wiki article per WP:NOT#NEWS Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 22:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the person now in gaol pleaded guilty to manslaughter not murder and "Michael O’Higgins SC, prosecuting, told Mr Justice Paul Carney that the defendant was in the drugs business, mainly cannabis, with McCormack of Artane Cottages in the capital. They had a falling out over money and had a fight." (From op cit) Peridon (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of web clips from somebody who isn't notable. no sources, no claims of notability, no list item is notable. Jac16888Talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced essay and NPOV issues. Eeekster (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable neologism. See [44] for a link to the newsgroup posting on which it was coined. — ækTalk 09:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability as defined by WP:PRODUCT. I can find no independent reliable sources to demonstrate notability, in particular no relevant matches in Google News (many matches to the anime series of the same name for which this BBS was originally named after). All current references in the article are self published. Since the previous AfD discussion over five years ago, there have been no independent sources added to establish notability and there is little prospect of this situation changing. If the basic information is credible, it may be an option to merge, at least a mention, of the BBS into The Super Dimension Fortress Macross which at the moment appears to make no mention of it at all. Ash (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Fray (album) JoshSiber (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Song not notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Suggest a redirect to The Fray (album) WPTX-FM (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While the subject might be worthy of an article, something the deletion !voters do mostly agree with, there is consensus here that the article in its current form it's not worthy of inclusion and there is no material that could be salvaged from it. As such, per WP:DEL#REASON, this article, as only consisting of material unsuitable for inclusion, can be deleted. The consensus here is not against a recreation that covers the subject itself though. Regards SoWhy 16:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find reliable sources indicating notability of subject. Google search brings up various vintage snowmobile organizations around North America, but I couldn't find any third party sources. Article as it currently stands seems to be about one particular vintage snowmobiling organization, not the topic in general, and consists mainly of a how-to on restoring vintage snowmobiles. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 30 Seconds to Mars (album). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Attempts to redirect to album article are reverted by various IP editors. AfD in attempt to gain consensus to delete then create a redirect (to prevent article recreation). Nouse4aname (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. By the way, I was the one that contested the prod and added the reviews. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No claims to notability. All references are about the author or his lectures, and the only one mentioning his book is the Penn State news page. No reliable third party sources for notability of the book. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:NALBUMS, can find no independent coverage of this compilation album. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this amateur team meet the notability criteria? It doesn't appear to be competing at the highest level of the sport, or to be the subject of significant media coverage. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book, appears to fail WP:NBOOKS. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Jayjg (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks credible third party sources. not a notable person (TurnWild (talk))
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable for planning an attempted circumnavigation. If he is successful, that will be notable, but until then, this is pretty much a crystal ball issue. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "list" implies that there are plural entries, whereas, once all non-notable names have been removed, only one entry remains in this "list". Ἀλήθεια 14:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still Original research, still fails WP:N. Could be selectively merged into Cyrillic if you can't bring yourself to vote delete. Polarpanda (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge with Comparison of ISO image software. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fork of Comparison of ISO image software, which bears very similar contents. There is no point in keeping two articles with so close resemblances when keeping one would suffice. Fleet Command (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deletion under CSD A7 (non-admin closure). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based entirely on self-published sources. There appears to be one reliable source, but it is a list of winners of a competition and only provides a trivial mention of the subject. No other mentions of the club (besides its website and this article) were found through a Google search, so notability does not exist and cannot be established. Xenon54 / talk / 13:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, unambiguous advertising: to motivate and educate people about entrepreneurship and serve as a meeting ground for Corporate and young budding entrepreneurs from distinguished institutions across the country and eDC aims to not only show you the doors of opportunity, but also equips to walk through them.... Help us make this summit a huge success!! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod non-notable event. Ridernyc (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable promotional event. Ridernyc (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom Line. Real Event. Real Website. Real Beer. Happens every year as evidenced by the past 4 years. This is not vandalism it is a real event, thus should not be deleted.
Once again I say that plenty of other events were marked for deletion years ago that turned out to be significant events. You are all being a bit speedy ninja trying to get this deleted. It is not offensive in any form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarkarn (talk • contribs) 12:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand how this falls under brand "promotion" since Crown Lager is already a well established brand that I have no affiliation with. If you are trying to delete "non notable events" then maybe you should look at Bed_Time and direct your energy to there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwarkarn (talk • contribs) 12:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, as limited policy-related issues with the article seem to have been brought up. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an embarrassing, over-detailed article about a fictional world, just waiting to be a wikigroan (if it isn't already). It should be merged into klingon as a paragraph if not deleted outright. Compare for example Afrikaner culture. That's right, it doesn't exist. It's a subsection of Afrikaner, which is appropriate. --Slashme (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this porn star. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real assertation of notability other than looking at some bloke that was sat on the Queen's bed!! raseaCtalk to me 23:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't see evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC. Notability tags repeatedly removed by anon, and prod tag removed without reason given. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 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)) . |
Don't Delete this is a music artist who has appeared on countless stations and has a very loyal fanbase. He is a major label artist who tours the country and has appeared on various major media outlets such as LOGO, The Advocate Magazine, Out Magazine, and has toured the country. He is an independent artist with major label distribution and his single "Lost & Found" has charted on various music dance music charts such as GBM Music Chart, Starfleet Dance Music Charts, ect. I feel this artist does infact meet the WP:Music standard as he has aquired much non-trivial press coverage and is releasing his album on an important indie label. This artist is known nation wide and has created an impact in indie music, especially in the LGBT dance community. He has received press coverage by media and publications independent from himself such as Expressions Magazine, Pride Source Magazine, Rage Monthly, Baltimore Out Loud, Instinct, NEXT Magazine, OutSmart Magazine, OutFront Colorado, Camp Magazine, Out Impact Magazine, Horizon Barcelona Magazine, The Advocate magazine and on such national radio coverage on shows such as This Show Is So Gay and Question Reality. He also has two music videos in rotation on the LOGO network, his first of which was debuted on a major show by Jennifer Hudson and has toured and performed in many substantial and important LGBT festivals and music clubs (a complete list can be found on his website). This artist has created an impact on people like myself as well as other fans of LGBT dance music. Many articles are listed on his page with links to verify their validity as well as his music video link on a major television network. When googled his website appears at second on my page and only beaten by facebook. If this artist, with his multiples of press coverage, tours, and his current rotation on major music network and various dance music radio programs, should be deleted then I would say other artist such as Semi Precious Weapons and Tony Enos as well as many others should be deleted. All of these artist have proven themselves in their own rights and have received much considertion and press coverage especially in the LGBT community. If we are saying the press coverage from the LGBT community doesn't count as viable or important press coverage then I would say delete all articles, but as I see it now, this article and artist meet the standards of notablity.
Delete The article reads like a self promo, referencing in the main only interviews given by the artist in which he promotes himself in a postitive light or from his own facebook etc pages. The article is full of weasel words - relying on details which have note been or can not be independently verified. If he has a fan base, it appears to be small and I am not convinced that all the edits are not being made by the same one or two people - they are never signed in or under a name. RichardLowther (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with RichardLowther, one of my initial concerns was that this article has only been edited by very persistent anons (anons rarely check so regularly on a page to remove any negative tags) and that the creator has edited several pages, but only to add information on this one person. Although it may not be a conflict of interests, it looks like self-promotion. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can assure everyone that the article is not self promotion and that I do edit the article under annons because I don't always feel like signing in, sometimes forgetting to. I was unsure how to properly write an article on Wikipedia and did try to do it like a book report based on a few articles that I have read and that were online, the artist facebook updates, and website updates. I can and will rewrite the article to comply more with the an informative article and not like an interview, if that would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, and I wouldn't expect someone who is new to understand all the rules - we're all still learning, however long we've been on here - and we're pleased to see people creating articles! However, we need to be really clear who is editing in situations where tags are being removed in particular. Are you the anon who fist voted 'don't delete' on here? If so, please merge your comments so there is only one heading of 'don't delete' and it is clear that they are all the comments of one person. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 07:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had the first comment on here but I am not sure how to merge them. I am in the process of rewriting the article now and should have it done sometime this weekend (if all goes well). If you do have any tips of any kind that would be greatly appreciated. Should I inform the creator of the Tony Enos article of the same, I sort of try to follow that lead on writing, as he is another artist that is known by the LGBT community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 07:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've merged your comments now so they're clearly from the same person. Asking people who've created similar articles for advice is a good idea. Best wishes, Boleyn2 (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So can this conversation be considered closed and can I remove the deletion notice off of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify, my vote is definitely for deletion as he doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. If you work on it and can prove me wrong, then try to do so. You might also want to move the content to User:YouCalledMeBeautiful/sandbox where you could work on it, and if the article's deleted but he becomes more notable later on, you could recreate the article. Boleyn2 (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even with a substantial rewrite, I still can't see it meeting the criteria set in WP Music, there is a complete lack of any independent comment about him - everything derives from his self promotional interviews which have been picked up by fringe magazines - none of which seem to question or independently verify any of stories. I think that Boleyn2's comments about reworking in a sandbox for the future and repost should he meet WPmusic in the future is good advice. RichardLowther (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many links to third party sources listed in the article. If you would like to delete the article then go ahead and do so. I thought I explained and proved how this artist met the criteria for an article. If it is that serious then go ahead and delete the article. I will continue to build my knowledge of this website, writing articles, and I hope everyone will at least look up the artist as he is a good artist and has an impact in the LGBT dance music community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.48.109 (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just checking, is that last anon comment by you, YouCalledMeBeautiful? If so, I'm very pleased that you plan to continue writing article no matter the result on this one article. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it is, sorry I have to get used to logging in. I do plan to continue writing articles about things that I care about and that I find significant, that are not on Wikipedia. I understand this website has rules and regulations, which I did think I followed with this article. I don't think there is a big enough LGBT community presence on this website and artist that are legitimately involved in doing something for the LGBT community should be recognized for their contributions. I also do not understand why this article is being criticized so much when other articles are clearly for self promotion and show no reference, links, or support the claims made in the articles, while the article I wrote has all of those things. I became a fan of this artist over the summer when I saw his show and then looked up his music, read his articles, watched his videos, and video blogs and I think he is a legitimate person to write about based on his press coverage, video rotation on a major network, and he is signed to a major label distributed indie. If this article is really that offensive to everyone please let me know how to add it to my sandbox because I don't want this article to be permanently gone and will wait until I get the "OKAY" for the Wikipedia editors to relist the article because standard society says it's okay. How one article is picked over another for this is beyond my comprehension. I need someone to explain to me how articles like Tony Enos are not deleted since he has no supporting articles, label, or rotation or charting, an he is not the only one. I don't understand this at all and need someone to explain this to me please.YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
In the meantime, YouCalledMeBeautiful, you ought to userfy the article, or ask to have it done for you, so that if it does end up being deleted, you can work on it in your own user namespace, improving it as per the comments made here in this AfD. If you want the article userfied, and do not know how to do it yourself, leave me a note on my talk page, and I’ll do it for you. — SpikeToronto 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SpikeToronto if you could please let help me in anyway that would be greatly appreciated. As I said I am new to Wikipedia.YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question I was wondering if Invictus (Daniel Gray album) should also be considered for deletion? Boleyn2 (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(NOT A NEW 'KEEP' - FROM CREATOR WHO HAS ALREADY WRITTEN ABOVE) Keep everyone should know my vote and that is to keep the now cleaned up article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC) — YouCalledMeBeautiful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I don't see why this article is going up for deletion. I got an email from a friend of mine telling me about this article being up for deletion and was asked to help vote to keep it. There have been legitimate articles written about this artist and he has notoriety.
There are artist with far less on on here.PopMusicLover03 (talk)— PopMusicLover03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Don't Delete I vote to keep the article. I don't know what people are being so uptight for. Keep it!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainbowLover2009 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to remain paranoid, but both the above have made no other edits on WP apart from here. In fact, only Spike Toronto has expressed the opinion that this should be kept and has ever edited other than about this man. I'm concerned that those who got this e-mail from a friend may not have looked up the inclusion guidelines at all, but I'm more worried that they are not separate people. Boleyn2 (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PopMusicLover03 (talk) Comment As I started this discussion, I take the comments above as aimed at me and that I have therefore been accused of being someone with a bias and discrimination against the LGBT community. This kind of unfounded allegation has no place on WP and is ridiculously petty. We are discussing whether this meets WP:MUSIC - to resort to accusations that this seems to have started because of one person's grudge makes no sense. Boleyn2 (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Making completely unfounded accusations that someone has a bias and discrimination against the LGBT community would come under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Boleyn2 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not personally attack anyone and didn't single out anyone in my comments. I simply am stating my opinion about how the nature of many comments are being perceived by me. PopMusicLover03 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Hello everyone, I am the artist this article is about and I have received many emails about this debate. I would first like to thank my fans for all their love and support. I am also very flattered to see that someone took the time to make this page about me. However I do ask that all the rules of Wikipedia be followed and that while I think it's great for people to debate I don't feel it is necessary to resort to name calling, mud slinging, and talking down to people. I make music to make people happy and I ask for people to understand there is a time and place for everything. If this is not my time to be on Wikipedia then that is fine by me because I will continue to make the music and projects I love. Let's end this year off great with peace, love and dancing. I respect everyone's opinions and thank all my fans and non fans for taking part. Happy Holidays and Happy New Year to all! Much love all around! DanielGrayWorld (talk) 8:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable made for television film. Fails WP:NF and WP:N. Only a single review, in DVDTalk, for the DVD release, and listings in the usual movie directories with little details there. It can be verified it exist (it was hilarious at that), but it has not managed to establish any notability since 2006. Even for a Sci Fi channel thing, having only one review is pretty bad. Prod removed by User:Arbitrarily0 with note of "contested prod; please pursue deletion through AfD". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable road, or at least nothing mentioned in this article. Prod applied and disputed. PKT(alk) 14:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The author probably means TASER,makes no sense Adi4094 (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Catherine_Asaro#Saga_of_the_Skolian_Empire. There is no consensus how to deal with this article, although consensus is also against keeping the article in its current form. Several options were presented in this discussion, from outright deletion to redirecting without merging to merging the content to a new Saga of the Skolian Empire article. There is no agreement though which of those options should be used to deal with the article, so further discussion on the relevant talk pages is probably needed. As such, I have closed this as redirect to Catherine_Asaro#Saga_of_the_Skolian_Empire for now, which removes the article itself (which was the outcome those arguing for deletion or redirecting wanted) without removing the content (which allows the material to be merged somewhere else) and thus should reflect the general consensus of this discussion that the subject is not worthy of a stand-alone article. Regards SoWhy 15:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deprodded article is on a type of fighter pilot in a science fiction series. It contains nothing but WP:PLOT description, presented in a most unencyclopedic way. Title cannot be redirected (a favorite solution of some editors who don't want outright deletion), since the term Jagernaut is the name of both real and fictional places going back hundreds of years. But most importantly to this nomination is the total lack of independent third party sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added two small references. That is a start. And a reason the more to keep this article. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added another few references. Compare this related Afd, where the closing comment shows that sourcing is a good enough reason to gain a keep. I would advise the nominator and all those who voted "delete" (many of whom I remember from other discussion as hard-line deletionists), to start searching for sources and actually improve the article, instead of taking the easy way out with an Afd. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently involves synthesis, and 90% of the alleged "anti-Christian sentiment" is either a) not sourced directly to anti-Christian sentiment, or b) not even anti-Christian. This also has a inherent pro-Christian right-wing slant bye effectively defining anything that affects Christians negatively as anti-Christian. Of the numerous examples given, only eight of them are slightly objectively anti-Christian. This sort of article belongs on Conservapedia, not here. Sceptre (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ENT, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retired minor league pitcher, never reached big leagues. Not too notable. Alex (talk) 08:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league figure. Alex (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Elf (Middle-earth). There is so little content and no references that it is hard to justify existence of this article as a separate one. A merge to a list would be relevant, if there is one. Until then, a redirect. Tone 13:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Very minor aspect of the works of Tolkien, doesn't have any impact on the plot, doesn't play any significant role (as a group: the individual people are important, but not as being a member of the Lambengolmor. Two Google news hits[52], not from reliable independent sources though. Among the Google Books results, most are not very impressive, referencing the yahoo group of the same name, not the Tolkien fiction directly. Only the 1000 page "The J.R.R. Tolkien Companion & Guide: Chronology" [53] gives one short reference to the Lambengolmor, basically restating our article. This is not sufficient basis to have an article here. If even such an extensive book mentions this in such a minor way, then it is obviously an extremely minor aspect of the works of Tolkien. Fram (talk) 08:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is unanimous consensus that the article does not bear sufficient notability to stand alone as its own page. However there's no strong agreement on whether or not to merge or simply delete. Given that, the most reasonable solution seems to be to delete the article and allow for a redirect or merge to be made at a later time if deemed appropriate. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The accompanying article on literature was deleted over a year ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Eldarin literature. This is basically the languages used by Tolkien fans when writing new texts, expanding the languages devised by Tolkien. While the original languages by Tolkine are notable (and not up for deletion), these are not made by him, have not received any significant attention in reliable sources, and thus fail WP:N completely. No Google news or books hits. Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to save everyone the time of having a prod, and then having it removed, because this article's inevitably headed there.
Regional liposuction clinic, no apparent sources outside of primary ones. My searches don't lend much to make me doubt the speedy nominator, excpet that they've registered on twitter, facebook, and myspace. Google news reveals nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 12:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, created by subject, subject continues to remove "speedy" label. Not sure what to do here. Newt (winkle) 06:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed prod that was declined by another user. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is this encyclopedic. Both of those would be reasons even assuming it was well sourced, but this is not that either. Shadowjams (talk) 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Sarilox (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL. Airplaneman talk 04:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Six Apart. Tone 13:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, no sources, and defunct for quite some time. A defunct site is not likely to gain new sources. Miami33139 (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find coverage for Griffith as an actor, and only a small bit of coverage as a playwright.[54][55].
An editor had added this article to a proposed deletion category rather than adding the prod template, and I now realise that the editor has identified as Griffith, see User talk:Colleyhampton. As he seems to be requesting deletion (and has asked about this on his talk page before), I think we should respect this wish. Fences&Windows 22:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Article creator removed PROD tag. ttonyb (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Article creator User:Thankful08 is a single-purpose account promoting Lucas Kazan Productions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable New York City restaurant - even in a city with no shortage of famous eateries, this one isn't famous at all. The article's sole references relate to what happened to the property after the restaurant was shut down - a local real estate story with no encyclopedic value. Warrah (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oyster Bay Restaurant was a highly frequented establishment for a period of four decades, 1900-1940, in Manhattan, New York City. The establishment was centered in the Times Square area. The history of the business and what happened to the property is important to the history of New York City. I plan to expand the article ASAP, utilizing additional references. There is a good possibility I will be able to find more about the antecedents to Oyster Bay Restaurant, specifically its history prior to the name change from Fay's Restaurant in 1900.--Robert (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this company. A search returns just directory listings and self-published social media pages, and the references in the article mostly return general news pages where the purported articles are inaccessible. Transmissionelement (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable computer chip, no reliable sources for verification. GlassCobra 14:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turning up 218,000 (actually 216,000) hits on google seems to mean there is quite a bit of interest in the content of the article and hardly makes it "non-notable". I was trying to add references to the article when it was tagged. If there are any comments on what should and should not be included in the article I would like to hear them as I thought I was abiding by the guidelines. PoPCulture69 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party sources indicate notability. (A page from the publisher of an author's book is not sufficient.) Danger (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a significant enough book to meet the WP:GNG. The book, while it exists, is not mentioned significantly in any major sources. A mere mention in book review blogs don't cut it. Tavix | Talk 02:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Only significant contributor consents to deletion[57] Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no evidence that this online tournament is covered in reliable sources and therefore believe it fails the notability criteria.
I am also nominating the following related page, because it exists only to elaborate on the NSGP Championship with a list of 2009 participants:
Gonzonoir (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This tournament exists per http://newstarsoccer.com/newstarforum/showthread.php?t=10255 It does not only elaborate a list of the championship racers, it also contains a table along with the winners, 2nd placed players and of the players that got pole positions and where --85.139.161.97 (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— 85.139.161.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reason for disambiguation page as only one article, The Greatest Game Ever Played, exist. Labattblueboy (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has had a ((notability)) tag for a year, either it should be deleted or the tag removed. As far as I can tell, the google news hits mentioning it are reporting what it says, not discussing the group itself. Do they make it notable? Polarpanda (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 10:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does "As a critic of advertising and consumer culture he has been quoted in a number of publications" make him notable? Polarpanda (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It has been a lively discussion with some interesting comments. Wikipedia:Systemic bias is always worth being aware of - though it also has to be accepted, that it will always be present by the very nature of who contributes to the English version of Wikipedia, and that while we can take positive steps to counter it (Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias have some ideas), we have to do the appropriate thing when required. This article does not assert notability, and does not provide sources which suggest notability. It doesn't meet the guidelines of WP:CORP. Numbers of employees are not a notability indicator. I will userfy this on request. SilkTork *YES! 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains no references that suggests the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP. A corporation with "over 100 employees" is not likely to cross the bar anyway. I can't find any independent sources on Daiko or Daitec, but I can't search in Japanese. Mkativerata (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story. Neither do the publication of routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, routine mergers or sales of part of the business, the addition or dropping of product lines, or facility openings or closings, unless these events themselves are the subject of sustained, independent interest.
The result was Merge. The consensus here is in favor of keeping the content in another form, possibly in the form of a list. The target of the merge needs to be discussed though. SoWhy 15:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is delete, I'll be sad to see the article go. LJP has quite a wiki and forum following. By the way, take a look at the only other console emulator for PalmOS I know of, Phoinix (external here). -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Kiss & Tell (Selena Gomez & the Scene album). Discussion shows that the article does not meet requirements of WP:NSONGS at the moment. As suggested, article to be merged with parent until such time as the single achieves the notability requirments of WP:NSONGS, in which case it can be broken out into a stand alone article in WP:Summary style SilkTork *YES! 00:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No awards, no covers: fails WP:NSONGS. Some versions of this article have claimed a one-week blip on the "Bubbling Under" chart, but I haven't been able to verify that, and the claims have contradicted themselves. Efforts to redirect the article have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.
![]() | This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was speedy delete. Blatant copyvio of this. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently written in a first person style. He has written a lot of books/articles/papers but I can't find anything that would make him notable beyond a couple of passing mentions and therefore it is difficult to make this article encyclopedic. It was de-prodded twice so I've added it here to see what other people think. Mattg82 (talk) 00:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax, no sources. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and possible hoax. I can find no information for the series, actors, creator or the production company. List_of_Smooth_Criminal_episodes should also be included in this discussion. Ridernyc (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]