The result was redirect to List of Home Improvement characters. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable and nothing more than TV trivia. George Pelltier (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game-cruft which is entirely in-universe information, and unreferenced. It also describes minor characters, which goes against the notability criteria. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax article. The ((db-vandalism)) tag was added by Bhockey10 (talk · contribs), and it was removed from the article and prodded by Sjakkalle (talk · contribs). An IP de-prodded the article so I have brought it to AfD. A Google search for the football league and its founder, Harry Rowman, returns only Wikipedia. This club is either a hoax or a non-notable club that fails WP:ORG. Cunard (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable... lots of prose (including a fair number of redlinks) but nothing that jumps out to qualify under WP:MUSIC. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't work out if this is notable or not from the references because I can't read Greek or Turkish. A few days back a speedy tag was removed so I let it run hoping something would happen to it. Nothing did. I'm bringing it here for a verdict. Since I am not sure about the article and company I'd better state that this is a neutral nomination simply to get an answer! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article provides little to no context, and little to no content. Article had been submitted for Speedy deletion, but another contributor removed the tag.
Also worthy of noting that a search on Google only brings up promotional pages, and no secondary source. Deenoe 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this product is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, no reliable sources. Reads like blatant advertising Beagel (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is a family history/genealogy. No reliable sources provided, none found. I am hard-pressed to see how this family is notable. TNXMan 18:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No support for deletion in this AFD, this should not prevent a decision on merging/redirecting being agreed by consensus on the talk page if individual notability cannot be established. Davewild (talk) 08:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent reliable sources indicate that this individual episode has any notability beyond the series. Attempts to deal with the various episode articles have been unsuccessful because of unsubstantiated and unsustainable claims of individual notability for every single episode. Otto4711 (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of episodes article, as per the usual custom. Jtrainor (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability , zero reliable 3rd party sources. Rtphokie (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Alexf(talk) 18:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
French article about an Argentinian footballer, who is apparently responsible for Paris Saint-Germain F.C. not losing a single game while he played for them, despite the fact he was only added to that article this afternoon, [1] and has zero relevant ghits, and who has now retired to date various models and save the world economy Jac16888Talk 18:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biography lacks any independent sources. It relies entirely on the subject himself to prove his own notability. Article was given time to improve, and remains inadequate. Rob (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No assertion of notability. I did a quick google, and the best I got was this. doesn't quite cut it, unfortunately. yandman 08:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the article is being created under WP guidelines (including an OTRS ticket to use the company's PR material), this is still a corporate advertisement. The company does not meet WP:CORP in any way; no indication of notability is given other than the mere existence of the entity. The ((underconstruction)) tag notwithstanding, this is a clear WP:CSD#A7, but pulling to AfD for consensus in recognition of the way the author is going about this. §FreeRangeFrog 17:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the page named "Altsoft" has right to present in the Wikipedia. The article is informative and encyclopedic, it doesn't violate any copyright law and is not advertising and promotion of the company. Therewith the article is under construction.~~Aimonai~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aimonai (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC) — Aimonai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oho, at last the guys published an article about themselves!!! I don't see any reason for article's deletion, although I use the Altsoft's product I didn't know some of the information about them. Didn't even know that it is possible to integrate Altsoft product with Gradual Switch. cool! 86.57.147.121 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin speedy close of likely bad-faith nom. User:Horsenuked's only edits are to nominate this article for deletion. Please use your regular account if you want to nominate this. Mike R (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BIO1E, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:BIO. Horsenuked (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beverly Eckert seems like a reasonable article. I'd like to know more about her, and this seems like a good way to put things together. She seems to have been an effective voice in Washington. She is all over Google, even without the current incident. I vote to keep KellyCoinGuy (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like KellyCoinGuy says, she was newsworthy prior to the incident of 2/12/09. Nonpoint74 (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to have been notable even before the crash for her advocacy. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her activism pertaining to 9/11 terrorist attack against the USA, has made her notable based on wikipedia rules and regulations. Tommy Nero Sullivan (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. Newsworthy before the incident as an activist for Sept. 11 families, met with the President, specifically mentioned in Obama's press conference. -- Irixman (t) (m) 17:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Porter fails WP:1E as he was known exclusively for sending an email about his opinions to Barack Obama. and WP:NOT#NEWS because news coverage of the individual does not go beyond the context of the event. Tavix (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A truly awful article, but that's not the point. It's hardly indiscriminate, it's verifiable, and it's a common sub-article (see other series). yandman 08:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate and listcrufty article. This is a small, exclusive list of cast members. The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category. Tavix (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains no reliable references and I couldn't find any, so it is most likely unverifiable. Running AFD in case I happen to have overlooked any. Delete. (Not to mention the unworkable title) Mgm|(talk) 00:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barely/non-notable fringe concept. POV and source problems for at least eighteen months; it is evident no work at all has gone into fixing it. Sceptre (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. DustiSPEAK!! 16:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced, no indication of notability, not a reasoable search term Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jotto. Should be a delete, really, but redirects are cheap. Mostly a duplicate of this article, and effectively the same game. Black Kite 13:56, 19 February 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)) . |
Contested prod, removed by author. Article is basically just the explanation of a made up game. Wiki is not for things made up in one day. Article also fails WP:RS and WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, removed by author. Article reads like an instruction guide; fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Also cites no sources, so it fails WP:RS and WP:OR as well. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:BLP1E Madchester (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of many stories that will probably explode and then weeks later he'll have no presence outside of RAGING D:< interbutt forums. I say we wait and avoid making this page a battleground. Octane (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike as blatant advertising (CSD G11). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion of theory which has received little if any independent notice. Also listed under AfD: BICs Markets and BICs 4 Derivatives. Rcawsey (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G11 Cheers Imperat§ r(Talk) 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in the Discussion page of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Basis_Instrument_Contract:
All efforts have been to properly source and reference this article. If any portion is found objectionable, please simply state your concern in a polite and substantive manner and the issue will be addressed. The author appreciates that the concept is not widely known and arouse suspicion but please notice that credibility of the material is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.
It is not simply an attempt at self promotion. In view of the present economic crisis, its content is notable importance.
AS SUCH THERE IS SIMPLY NO OBJECTIVE BASIS FOR DELETION.
Note further that under Wikipedia rules on citing oneself in No original research at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, it is stated: "Citing oneself
This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."
This article reflects results published in WIPO publication WO2003107137 with the highest level of reliability opinion provided.
Bics (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"again do not delete" How do you guys define notability? Even the nber of google hits is respectable. The question is: is it content an encyclopedia user would trust? a WIPO establishes more credibility than 99% of what is on wikipedia now. The answer is yes, of course. What type of bias do you guys have? Bics (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Alexf(talk) 18:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
French article about an Argentinian footballer, who is apparently rated higher than Maradona and yet google returns no hits. Plus he has apparently retired to work in porn. most likely hoax Jac16888Talk 14:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotion of new unnotable theory, no independent coverage Rcawsey (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DELETION: Qualifying the book as non notable is personal and subjective opinion that is hard to justify. In view of the recent crisis, this book has become particularly relevant for the issues at the root of the crisis as well as the prescription to address it. The credibility of the book is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.
It is not a "marketing campaign" but a mere recitation of independently sourced material of the highest credibility
Bics (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) ~ mazca t|c 01:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a rash of quasi notable motivational speakers whose pages serve as little more than a vehicle to self promote and sell books, courses, etc. I have pruned all the uncited material, found a whole slew of other stuff that needs to be cited or should go, and have done the maths on the 100 million books in 47 langauges and 124 titles to discover that means each title has sold 17158 copies. Not really best sellers, those. See Harry Potter for a best seller! Canfield's stuff is peanuts! Or, in my view this does not make the gentleman notable, just industrious. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book; it may be that the claims made in the book are admissable, but the book itself has received little if any independent attention. Rcawsey (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED DELETION: Qualifying the book as non notable is personal and subjective opinion that is hard to justify. In view of the recent crisis, this book has become particularly relevant for the issues at the root of the crisis as well as the prescription to address it. The credibility of the book is independently sourced and properly referenced using the WIPO website at http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003107137. the World Intellectual Property Organization is the most authoritative body in the world on intellectual property matters. A review of the International Preliminary Examination report issued Oct 1, 2004 in the documents tab associated with the patent publication WO2003107137 show that all 273 claims made in the application are found admissible as New, involve an Inventive Step and are Industrially Applicable.
It is not a "marketing campaign" but a mere recitation of independently sourced material of the highest credibility Bics (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bics (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in addition to all the info I provided above i just typed google on BICs 4 Derivatives which gave me 89,800 hits including articles from FITCH an industry leader and mathematica. how do you guys define notability by the way? Bics (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:NOTAGAIN; see WP:DRV –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Previous AfD closed as "no consensus" as admin felt uncomfortable closing it as a redirect/merge to the author article and confusion over the name, but there was no actual consensus to keep either. Discussion also went off track because of a similarly named series. Renominating to reach a clearer consensus to avoid continuing issues over article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Resistance 2. MBisanz talk 04:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lists no reliable sources (the linked Wikia entry is itself unreferenced) and is horribly mistitled. The article on Resistance 2 doesn't mention it, which leads me to think it's a very minor character. Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising but someone removed the speedy tag. (I suspect it was the author after logging out, because he had already removed the speedy tag earlier, and the second removal occurred within minutes of my restoring it. Also, the IP address is located in Saskatoon, the location of the article's topic.) Note the name of the author. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism; does not appear to be referenced in reliable, third-party sources Gonzonoir (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable website masquerading as a dicdef. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be completely non-notable (or at any rate, does nothing to establish its notability, and seems to be totally run-of-the-mill). It has several misleading links - including one from pink - and is totally unsourced. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 12:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selfpromotion/advertising. Name of author suggests conflict of interest. Article on de: has been deleted already. See also m:User:COIBot/XWiki/praxismmt.com for spam report. EdBever (talk) 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:01, 18 February 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)) . |
Company does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Few gnews hits exist, and apparently only in the context of Arrow Karts displaying in a trade show. This does not constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. (The article is also tagged for COI, which I will note is NOT a reason for deletion.) Frank | talk 11:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G11. The correct action to take when an author removes a speedy tag from his own article is to replace the tag and leave them a ((drmspeedy)) warning. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, speedily deleted, recreated by poster, persistently removing db tags with little or no explanation. Someone please salt this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angelina Joli look-alike. Claims of notability but no evidence offered. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know of Andrea Shavonne Williams on a personal level, not only on her wide-spread level. We were very serious at one point, though I'm not trying to cash in on her notability or fame. I want that noted. I just wanted to add that this article is accurate. I for one can verify the information that the creator of this article has provided is true and accurate. However her Birthday is Nov 1st, the creator neglected to mention that in his description of her, or maybe he didn't know the exact date. I can also add some more personal information to this article if needed. She is a humanitarian, semi-vegan, and her signature scent is Wild Musk and has been since I first met her in 1994. She has many great loves in her life, and the one that I know to be her first and foremost beyond anything else is her youngest brother Lance. However, I will not compromise her private life. Just because I have the pleasure of knowing her on a personal level, I would want to make it CLEARLY understood I would never try to add my name into an article about her due to the fact I feel that if she found out she would feel I was trying to cash in on her so to speak. She is an amazing person, despite her fame, and I would like the world to know that. Some people lose their morals or forget their friends before they take off. She is not one of those persons. This is all I have to add at this time.—Preceding unsigned comment that originally was used to remove all other editors comments was added by Eric19945 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artypants (talk • contribs) [reply]
As to the persons who remarked on my earier comments and edits to the original editiors publication: I have not openly stated my idenidy due to the fact that I do not wish to look like a fame seeker by telling what I know of her life, nor have her look at me in that light if she was to come across the article. I was just posting what I know of her on a personal level to the authors original work. My name is Eric, however I will give no other information about myself on this public forum.
(((And in responce to User:JuJube|JuJube, I don't think I need to reveal my entire Idenity to help confirm what I know of her life!))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric19945 (talk • contribs)
The result was redirect to Speech synthesis. MBisanz talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was CSD'ed (incorrectly) by Graymornings, then PROD'ed by FlyingToaster (which the original author declined), so now I am bring it here - there is no assertion of notability within the article. Just PR pieces in the news, and I can't find anything asserting notability on a good scour of the web, either. — neuro(talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imrpvove the article. I post this on their own forum site so that Ken or Jim might improve it. --Samlaptop85213 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of school pranks. MBisanz talk 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability questionable Habanero-tan (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements Óðinn (talk) 07:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. Taking it here to see if anyone can find something establishing notability for this individual. Is a presence on YouTube and Myspace enough to justify the inclusion of this article? I cannot find any reliable sources to back the assertion of notability here. Steamroller Assault (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Foundry model . MBisanz talk 12:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists of definition of term + two lists of top 10 foundries in 2007 and 2004. Term is defined in Semiconductor fabrication plant in the second paragraph, so I changed the article to a redirect, which was reverted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability assertions tied to subject's blog. Bdb484 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no suggestion of notability Oo7565 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable EP. No allmusic entry. Nothing of note on Google. No independent sources. JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unsourced and makes no claim of notability for this family name. Contested prod, had been tagged for notability since October 2007. Jfire (talk) 07:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This former child actress with minor TV and film roles appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BIO; no significant coverage in reliable sources is cited and I could not locate any. Jfire (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Laurie Ferguson. MBisanz talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN; no significant coverage in reliable sources for this city councillor. Jfire (talk) 07:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective article about an obscure recipe. Google returns at least one restaurant that serves this dish, but little else. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS. It's very unfortunate that children died, but we can't create an article for every idiot driver that slams into a loaded truck. VartanM (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not, I believe, meet our current notability standards. Here's why... The Register and the Freaknomics column on the NY Times, both easily WP:RS compliant for tech-related news--check. But--Look closer at the Ayres column used from the NY Times as a source: There's not much material there, and can be arguably called trivial coverage. Look again at the "Reuters" source, here--it's a press release FROM Swoopo. Not RS or of any value for our notability standards. Looking over the article's current other sources at the time of this AFD: Crunchgear doesn't appear to be RS. "Rupert's blog", written by an economics student, doesn't meet RS standards. Metafilter isn't RS (Boing Boing, it's nearest major counterpart, sure, since people source to it in the media, it has notable authors who are often "tech" and new media experts) but Metafilter? It's Slashdot Lite. Coding Horror? Not RS. The rest is all Swoopo-sourced. I think a delete could be in order based on the present sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not even an article about an unreleased album, this article is devoted to a series of recordings Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan gave to friends as a gift. Fails WP:NALBUMS. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G7 – author request) by Jclemens. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 22:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-significant object (sounds like a gun in a videogame). Perhaps move into the appropriate game, however things like this are just... strange. K50 Dude R♥CKS! 04:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really am sorry about the poor quality of this article, i just got into Wikipedia and I'm still a novice. Go ahead and delete both articles, and I will try to be a better article writer in the future. Thank you graciously for your input! signed: Kurtz69 2-13-09
Italic text
The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure. Hnsampat (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with my perhaps long explanation: I hope it's not confusing. In short: a stub article about a nonexistent place. To be sure, it has multiple references, but (first off) it does not appear in Google Maps, and searching the GNIS reveals a "No Data Found" message. Ultimately, the sources for its existence are in error one way or another. The article was created because it is listed as the location for the Blood Run Site, a National Historic Landmark: look here to see it listed as "Sioux Falls". This server, and the National Park Service database behind it, can sometimes make errors of this sort — for example, the Site No. JF00-062 in Doniphan County, Kansas is accidentally listed as being in "Rulo, Kansas" on this page [the community in which it lies is always the word after the last comma, so the database produces results that say that it's in Rulo, Kansas], due to the site being so close to Rulo, Nebraska. As far as sources on the article: this speaks of a tight curfew in the community, but unless it's a municipality, it can't have a police force, and I can't imagine the GNIS or this Census Bureau map missing a municipality altogether. Moreover, this reference places the Five Ridge Prairie in Sioux Falls, but this article shows that the Five Ridge Prairie is located in Plymouth County, Iowa, which lies well south of Lyon County, Iowa, the alleged location of Sioux Falls, Iowa. This is inconsistent with this, the article's last reference, which places another site near Sioux Falls, Iowa but in Lyon County — and these are from the same webpage. Overall, it appears that this is a confusion for Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which is very close to to Lyon County, Iowa — created in good faith, not as a hoax, but clearly a mistake. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn no sources, tagged as needing cleanup for approaching for over a year Oo7565 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lack of defined WP:RS is a convincing position MBisanz talk 04:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Orrelly Man (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we bring this back? It is a lot more than a minor level sports league- it has been called the best HS athletic conference in the state of Massachusetts.Bchs23 (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Future film which has not started photography yet (article says cast not yet determined). No claim in article of meeting WP:N. Prod contested by IP user without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Lord Rees-Mogg. MBisanz talk 04:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She fails WP:POLITICIAN as she hasn't "held international, national or first-level sub-national political office". She finished fourth in an election in 2005 and was the candidate for a couple of other things, but has never held public office. Note that this is the second nomination, the first nomination ended up as a delete over two years ago. Tavix (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:NALBUMS. Collection of demo material that has never been released, of which in fact it is illegal to hold copies of. Article is a mix of OR and inventions. Subject is already covered in the Erotica article and the far superior Unreleased Madonna songs article. Main information for article comes from one source (Goldmine (magazine)) which can hardly be qualified as "significant independent coverage".Paul75 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject exists, and more information will probably become available in time. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources, no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — neuro(talk) 13:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Prod-ed Ramse Mostoller as not notable several days ago... It was deproded and suggested I take it to Afd if I wanted. I am not sure why. A short conversation ensued at User talk:Oo7565#Deprod of Ramse Mostoller. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, no indication that this house of worship is notable any more than a parish church. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
term "cloud+testing" does not exist outside of SOASTA (also nominated) and appears to have been created soley to promote this company. not notable, not verifiable wikivertisement that unfortunately doesn't appear to fit an existing CSD category. WikiScrubber (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G12 by User:PMDrive1061. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music performer. The article appears to be a vanity page with too many unsubstantiated and unreferenced claims. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AfD is not cleanup, as noted below; a massive need for a rewrite is according to no page valid grounds for deletion assuming other factors such as WP:N are met. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite continual attempts to reach a solution, the entire article takes on a negative view and is full of anti-American bias, for example Health Care or Abu Garhib Prison Abuse. If we were to fix the article, a massive rewrite would have to occur. I am not requesting a deletion because of it, but rather because of the apparent futility to make any changes that would decrease the bias as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a citizen of another country's Opinion. Rockstone35 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn. Mgm|(talk) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the last discussion on User talk:Chckmtechmp138. 175 of this editors articles have been deleted and the reasons are stated there. I believe this article falls under the same reasoning. Belasted (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons: :168th Street (BMT Jamaica Line) :Sutphin Boulevard (BMT Jamaica Line) :Queens Boulevard (BMT Jamaica Line) :Metropolitan Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line)
The result was delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in this article is uncredible historical myth, and the article should be deleted. A reference notice has been up since November 2007 and none have been provided. And since the "information" within in it is not credible, none could be. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not thrilled to delete this, but I'm willing to go along with it. More than happy to userify or restore just as soon as a motivated editor and a couple of sources appear. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend deletion because fails WP:BIO. This page has no references and has been up since December 2006. It is frequently vandalized by IP editors, but without sources it is difficult to tell what is vandalism and what is not. It is an orphaned article having a single article link from the /* See also */ of the Al Hamiri family article. I note that the article is not a hoax, that S.S. Lootah Group is a significant employer in the United Arab Emirates, and that Haji Saeed Ahmed al-Lootah was a real person, with his philanthropy noted in the Dubai pharmacy college and Dubai Medical College for Girls articles. Nonetheless, this current article is unsubstantiated and general notability has not been shown for the family. --Bejnar (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor social networking-type website, general notability issues. One possibly-acceptable mention in English here. Merovingian (T, C) 18:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, leaning towards keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
City level politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN. All references are either SELFPUB or local news stories. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sports team, fails WP:ORG. This passage raises serious questions about WP:COI and WP:SPAM. --Dynaflow babble 01:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
passage has been removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdnic1 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The opposition to Knight probably is notable, but either can be covered under the Texas Tech Men's Basketball article, or under Knight himself. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable professor, NYT article is probably notable but fails WP:1E and partly WP:INHERITED. Other references are not notable. prod remove by non-article creator -Zeus-uc 01:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as blatant misinformation. Davewild (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glitches aren't really that notable. This glitch hasn't been the source of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Fails WP:V through a Google search for notability. No References. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 01:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Missouri Democratic primary, 2004. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All information needed is found in Missouri Democratic primary, 2004. There is no need for two articles on the same primary. Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable commercial software. no sources. news.google.com shows two hits in Russian and Chinese, automated translation looks like these do not meet WP:RS or WP:N (fleeting mention) standards. Miami33139 (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. My feelings are more or less summarized by DGG; however, I do think that there is consensus in this Afd to keep the article, and that consensus does not plainly violate our policies/guidelines. While I might personally choose otherwise, keep is the appropriate close here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable person. Fails WP:BIO. First AfD closed as delete, with article creator immediately recreating the article and adding another local source and calling notable. Second AfD was more ambiguous. Over a year later, nothing has been added to the article but more local sources. Almost all sources are local newspapers (failing requirement to be independant for establishing notability) and self-published websites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citation overview:
Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a detailed review of the sources above. Essentially, most of the sources are self-published websites, many of which contain no information other than Toubin's name in a list of other people. At least one of the sources does not mention Toubin's name at all, but instead concern his parents. The documentary that he was quoted in received extremely limited viewing. Although I've not read the books nor seen the documentary, the descriptions of them make it seem that Toubin is simply quoted in them - there was no research into his life other than what he told them. He was also only one of a number of people interviewed for these endeavors, which implies that his individual recollections are not notable in and of themselves, only how they support the narrative the author is drawing from the broader memory base. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus was to delete, however I will leave a redirect to List of bus routes in Essex as mentioned. Happy to userify if anyone wants the content. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These sixfive articles are all about hamlets/neighborhoods of one small town in upstate New York: Wheatland, New York (pop. 5,149).
According to the articles themselves, they consist primarily of excerpts from the book History of the Town of Wheatland: Scottsville, Mumford, Garbutt, Belcoda, Beulah, Wheatland Center by Carl F Schmidt (1953, reprinted 2002). One article claims that this book is in the public domain (here) while the others say it is used with permission (here, for example). But either way, just the editor's say-so isn't sufficient.
Additionally, as the articles themselves say:
The search for interesting or relevant information about today's Belcoda has, of this writing, turned up nothing. The search continues.
[A]s of this writing, interesting or relevant information about today's Beulah has proved elusive. The search goes on.
All of the industry that made Garbutt commercially significant has gone. A local excavating contractor may be found on Union Street and a small retail antiques business on the main road, but no other businesses or employers remain. The US Census Bureau does not maintain demographic data for Garbutt.
The US Census Bureau does not maintain demographic data for Mumford.
The area on the west side of Wheatland Center Road and between North and Scottsville-Mumford Roads once held houses and businesses. Today, there is nothing there but scrub land on the eastern side of the former gravel pit. The author of this article recalls, as a youth, farming the large field on the east side of Wheatland Center Road where once stood some of the buildings and businesses described here. Nothing of them remains.
I think that if anything in these articles is found to be salvageable, those bits should be merged into Wheatland, New York. But they mostly appear to be a combination of copyvio and OR. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I unlisted Scottsville, as it's an incorporated village (I don't understand how you can have an incorporated village inside an incorporated town, but that's irrelevant). I've put an ((cleanup-afd)) on it, partly due to the copyright status, and partly because it's not WP format). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The books identified as being in the public domain were confirmed as such by the publisher who did the reprints. This company's assertion of PD suffices. "Used with permission" is simply an acknowledgment of the publisher's cooperation. If it was a poor choice of words, then it can be struck without harm. If you can find a valid copyright, then and only then can you make the charge that this content constitutes a copyright violation.
Before incorporating the books' content, I specifically enquired via "helpme" whether this is acceptable and was specifically told that it is.
There is, to my knowledge, no valid reason for claiming that specific articles about these locations cannot exist on their own. They are neither too brief nor devoid of factual, historical, and current information.
In writing the articles I have contributed, I have found numerous boilerplate pages which have the same cookie-cutter statistical information from the same sources, and these appear not to be proposed for deletion.
Your imputation that there may be nothing salvageable in these articles is offensive and unwarranted. If there is a problem with informality, then make a complaint as such. Better to be informal than to be dull and uninformative. --Coosbane (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jclemens as an article created by a banned user in violation of their ban (CSD G5). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. No source provided that filming has resumed. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was all ready redirected to London School Buses . Fait accompli. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say that we merge all London school bus routes which are nominated for deletion into one article (i.e. London Buses routes 600 - 699)Spacevezon (talk) 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say that we merge all London school bus routes which are nominated for deletion into one article (i.e. Lonodon Buses routes 600 - 699)Spacevezon (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to London School Buses. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school bus route, previously nominated but failed because of confusing nomination. Renominating appropriate routes individually this time. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say that we merge all London school bus routes which are nominated for deletion into one article (i.e. Lonodon Buses routes 600 - 699)Spacevezon (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - blanked by author. ... discospinster talk 23:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Additionally, article written by subject, so large conflict of interest. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that it appears that way to me as well. Although the artist is in the mix and has received newspaper publicity (article in the Boston Globe) and award(s), there is a question as to who wrote the article and the motivation for writing it. If it's the artist himself who wrote the article on himself, then there's a conundrum in Wikipedia ethical terms. Notability is another general issue which is harder to resolve and weigh out. --- (Bob)
In the Dorchester, Massachusetts article, Robert Grant (or the person with the editor tag "User:Robertgrant1976") appears to have added himself as a notable person from Dorchester. Does this follow the same guidelines ? --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Alexf(talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any reference to this person playing for the team indicated. Furthermore, the user that created the page used to have the username Dukes.Simon and indicated on the username change form that it was his real name (see here). I would suggest that it is likely that this article is a hoax unless reliable sources that I could not find exist. Camw (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]