The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL because no one knows what the population will be 16 years from now, much less if the countries will be the same. For example, 20 years ago, the USSR was one of the most populous countries and now it doesn't even exist. It is nice for the United Nations to put together a list like this, but it is purely speculation based on current trends. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Original author has requested deletion. So has someone who says they're the article's subject. Though the article had more than one editor, given the living person issue and the limited notability of the subject, there seems to be no reason for further process. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, Self Published Sources, Poorly Written, Orphaned by Author Nefariousski (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. As G4. If you disagree with the previous recent AFD; use deletion review instead. SoWhy 09:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this fail Wikipedia:Notability (music)? If so, OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Dancing) needs to be deleted also. -- IRP ☎ 23:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as ((db-repost)) by User:Roux, however, I believe that there was a lack of discussion the first time it was nominated for deletion. -- IRP ☎ 23:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Famous for making Orkut, and being sued for making Orkut. As he has not notability except for his relation to Orkut, either delete or merge with Orkut. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP with no known sources showing notability; no known secondary sources. Several news reports show notoriety (high-priced call girl; married an interesting person; pleaded guilty to tax evasion; divorce proceedings). There have been attempts to sanitize the article, and there was a legal threat. However, actions by misguided editors are not a reason to keep an article. From WP:BLP1E: If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable software. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This product is the leading statistical analysis product for the world's leading desktop database product (Microsoft Access). It's been reviewed in numerous publications (a few referenced in the article) and is used by many government, medical, and commercial organizations. It's in its 9th version and has been around for almost 15 years. At the bottom of this page are links to a variety of published scientific studies referencing the product: http://www.fmsinc.com/Products/statistics/awards.html
Why would this be considered non-notable?
It also compares favorably to the many other statistical packages listed here Comparison of statistical packages with much shorter histories. DataAnalyzer (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references that show Total Access Statistics is relevant and in use for many years. These peer-reviewed, published scientific papers are available online for you to verify:
There are probably more online and certainly many papers which are not online. If there's wording that should be changed, please make suggestions. Thanks. DataAnalyzer (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If published scientific journals mention and used the product in their research, that should confirm the product is notable. These are significant publications, and there are many more.
In the External Links section of the article, there are references to online reviews of the software from magazines and books. More could be added if desired, and there are more which are not online. What is necessary to show this is a real product that's used in a wide range of environments? DataAnalyzer (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article claims a bloke or group invented a technique/cliche which is well known in new age/therapy circles, but the supposed creator never wrote any publications which are available in the mainstream, nor has he been discussed anywhere much. One book mentions him in a list of several people [1] and his followers have released two press releases [2] and that's all their mentions in the press. There's one book (?) written in German about them, but it's by a press associated with their movement and dedicated solely to their subject. [3] . I suppose an article could be written about the concept in therapies based on WP:RS but it would be nigh impossible as 'emotional releasing' is such a diffuse phrase and concept employed in different ways. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ptiche (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. About workable references: I have been checking the sources of the books about releasing. There are 5 books about releasing. It's true 3 books are from Sheema Medien Verlag (www.sheema.de). The creation of Sheema was inspired by the Releasing work, but it now has several other titles. More importantly, the fourth and fifth book are published by regular publishers:[reply]
Ich lasse los . . . Innere Heilung und spirituelles Wachstum. Die Releasingmethode für Laien und Therapeuten. C. Langholf - 3. überarbeitete Auflage, Sich Verlag Magdeburg 2008 - ISBN 978-39511692-5-6
Aufbruch nach Hause - Frauen unterwegs zu sich selbst. Ein spirituelles Praxisbuch für die Reise der inneren Heldin (Taschenbuch) von Sabine Treeß (Autor) - Taschenbuch: 352 Seiten - Verlag: Via Nova; Auflage: 1 (März 2004) - ISBN-10: 3936486468 - ISBN-13: 978-3936486469
The result was speedy delete. Clear hoax seicer | talk | contribs 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded new page. This is a neologism with no reliable sources for it. Inappropriate tone and of questionable encyclopeadic value. CrispMuncher (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a great word. Yes, it is a partial creation of a word, but isn't that the purpose of a source like Wikipedia, to be able to create new words that derived from other words and meanings to make a point? How does a new word come to pass if not for that same idea? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansasnoodle (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed twice, so adding here. Note I didn't place nor remove either of the prods. Below is prod rationale
Not even an attempt here at demonstrating compliance with WP:BAND - just announcements of endorsements on the members' individual Web pages. This veers dangerously close to speedy delete territory (CSD A7). --GedUK 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Delete, but permit recreation AFTER the primary in May clarification: should she win or otherwise become notable DGG (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An individual who is running in a mayoral primary fails to pass notability guidelines. Sources given are focused on other individuals with only brief, trivial mentions of the subject. Grsz11 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is not "considering" running for mayor. She has announced her candidacy, and will be partcipating in televised debates. This article was already deleted once, and I was told I could recreate it after she announced her candidacy. So that's what I did. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, you said, "This is a pretty clear case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool." You are wrong. I don't know this person. I have never met this person. I just happen to live in the same city, and have read quite a few articles about her, and thought the subject was interesting. I'm not even in the same political party as her. She's a Democrat and I'm a Liberetarian. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#G3 by Malcolmxl5. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOAX, probably WP:MADEUP. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks multiple reliable sources. Not notable. Probable hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 20:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:HOAX, I'm quite sure. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks multiple reliable sources. Not notable. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vulture19 (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Hoax (as others) seicer | talk | contribs 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Not properly referenced. Probable hoax. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear hoax with no queries producing results seicer | talk | contribs 18:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be hoax. Google search turns up nothing, and search for the awards turns up nothing on those purported awards. Aboutmovies (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article doesn't understand what we need, but the company is probably notable and it would be nice to salvage the article. Taking to AfD out of respect for the tagger, User:ttonyb1. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Pacific Northwest Corridor. merge to Pacific Northwest Corridor; there is not yet sufficiently advanced planning for an article. DGG (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this is still just a proposal - the only article about it says " The Eugene to Vancouver, B.C., corridor is one of 11 corridors designated for possible high-speed rail development. There is much to be done regionally before LaHood assigns priority funding for the engineering and development of the Cascadia high-speed rail line." Thus it lacks notability and, as the saying goes, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. dougweller (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It is admitted there are no sources yet; deleted but permit recreation when there are. Userification optional. DGG (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NF, unless the production is notable in itself, WP:CRYSTAL applies and this unreleased movie is not notable for Wikipedia yet. It may be once it is released, so rather than deletion, I actually propose moving this to userspace so it can be moved back when released and notability can be established. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:19, 10 March 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)) . |
Although the article lacks a (or some) picture(s),there are some posted on the movie's website and on the movie's fan group on Facebook.I will try to get one from the production and I will add it to the article.
Thank you for your understanding and support,
sincerely
Georges Halim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you again for your fast reply. Sincerely —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebnan (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you could move the article or something so it wouldn't have to be rewritten.--Lebnan (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without explanation. This list can never be complete, and the statement for inclusion notable country songs is purely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It is WP:LISTCRUFT and redundant to Category:Country songs. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These 3 articles created by the same editor are all essays about generally the same topic. One is currently tagged with a prod template, however I felt it would be easier to group all 3 together than to tag each individually with prod templates. Nick—Contact/Contribs 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources at all. Subject is the unofficial nickname of a platoon. Questionable whether the unit should even have a seperate article of its own. Entire article consists of legends and assertions about undocumented conversations between unknown people at unspecified times. A merger discussion has been in place for a couple of months and there has been little interest in supporting the merger. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another school, this one a high school with virtually no context again. There is no Sadbodhini to redirect to; no verifiability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP & improve/expand. the existence of the school has been verified apparently, if you read thru this whole debate. it's not very good as is, i admit, and needs work, but if we have a policy that high schools are noteworthy enough to have individual articles, per se, then this qualifies. did anyone think to look & see if the school has a website.
also, why are the "decision was delete, archived, etc" notes already on the text of this page? the debate is NOT closed, & the article has not already been deleted. it's very confusing to see that, when you go to write a comment. Lx 121 (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, in the very brief time it has taken me to write the above comment, the debate has been closed & the article deleted. that seems to be jumping the gun a bit. this was not a CSD Lx 121 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy deletion of schools is frowned upon but this is almost A3. In any case there is no indication of notability here, and we have no article Sadbodhini to redirect to, assuming that the name is of the place where this is located. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Harir was a teenager murdered in 2004. Her death received the typical amount of news coverage for a murder -- a couple of stories in local media. Otherwise, there appears to be nothing that makes her more noteworthy than the hundreds or thousands of other murder victims each year. I realize that this went through an AFD in 2007 and the result was keep, but I'd like to see what people think about it today. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this group meets WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 16:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Hoax. Not properly referenced. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not covered in reputable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article barely claims notability with their films made. After searching for info on these films to see if they're notable, I found only one news articles about any of the films. The article was written by Jason Keener. Here's my other searches for news on the film: [13][14][15][16][17][18]. Here's my searches for Jason LaRay Keener that show no articles: [19][20]. I see no proof of notability and obviously haven't found any on my own. OlYellerTalktome 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax (see others) seicer | talk | contribs 18:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax Kittybrewster ☎ 15:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There was only one keep !vote here versus at least three for deltion including nominator. If she satisfies notablilty in the near future, by all means, recreate. But for now it has not proven notability and has been defeated in AfD Valley2city‽ 03:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ENTERTAINER; non-notable. The Fashion Model Directory shows a very brief, minor career. A Google search turns up the usual forums and directory listings, and Google News turns up nothing. Prod removed w/o comment. Mbinebri talk ← 15:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 11:19, 15 March 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)) . |
Azeri genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As for Grandmaster's participation in this discussion, I think that by merely raising those issues his imput was productive & helpful, as a reminder of the bigger picture. :-) - Best, Ev (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So called Armenian Genocide is just a thesis but Wikipedia is reflecting it as a real and committed genocide through brainwashing young minds just because Armenian editors want it that way. Political acception because some countries have hidden agendas against Turkey does not mean international recognition. Historians decide that. Oh sorry according to some, it is just how things are done, I just forgot, my apologies. There are many world renowned historians disagreeing with the thesis and then accused or labelled of being pro-Turk and that is not propaganda? So sad. Just because the editors are Christians or Armenians allow them to reflect debateable issues as happened but when it comes to indicating a massacre with proof, it is propaganda. Go on then, make new genocides up like Greek or Assyrian and continue to publish them. Show to world how credible wikipedia information is.
Two wrongs do not add up to one right some say up there. Azeri Turks in certain regions did not vanish from earth's space just in one night. Whether that makes it a genocide, that I can not decide. Historians are here to do that, not Armenian editors. Therefore I urge from those who think that just because there are other articles in this site in similar positions to be deleted does not mean that this one should be kept, to be that sensitive to those debateable articles as well. If there are other articles in similar positions about genocide thesis that you agree up there, then where is your critism to those articles. Please guys try to be a little bit objective at least. That is the least you can do.ECDS (talk) 08:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — ECDS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
But i however agree on that the article needs to be rewritten into a more neutral article. Just as the one of the Armenian genocide and sutch.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Article contains little to no content and there are no citations, references, or sources. Veraladeramanera (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed without comment, no notability asserted, only ref is primary. Black Kite 15:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Issues are largely cleanup - consensus here is to keep - if you disagree, I suggest going straight to deletion review since I've read this several times already in my evaluation Fritzpoll (talk) 12:31, 16 March 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)) . |
This article fails our policies on verifiability and on biographies of living people because it does not have adequate sourcing. Although there are citations, they don't provide the level of information we require for BLPs. There are articles written by Klein, but none written about Klein. There are discussions of controversies Klein has been involved in, but nothing at all about the man himself. Many of the sources (e.g. the New York Post reference) only mention Klein in passing. Under some circumstances this might all be harmless, but this article has been a continuous battleground and has been used to host BLP-violating attacks on Barack Obama and others. Best to just nuke it. *** Crotalus *** 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Sirius Mystery. MBisanz talk 09:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article does not warrant inclusion. The one reference given is not a reliable source in my opinion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GodivaCake (talk · contribs) removed the AfD template with an edit summary saying the issue is resolved. I've replaced it. dougweller (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The delete "votes" are rather weak, so I feel the editors in favor of keeping the article made a stronger case. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability. No mention of awards, no mention of charted singles or albums. Rtphokie (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and rename. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs)
CSD and prod tags have been removed by a primary editor of the article, taking it to AFD to get a consensus... There is a single reliable reference, to a state website showing that that paperwork was filed for incorporation of the company. Of the remaining 31 references. 8 are from primary sources (the company website), 5 are broken links and the remainder are unreliable sources such as blogs, message boards and one to a company selling music from the games.
There is a single english and a single Chinese Google News hit on the company name. This article just doesn't seem to pass the WP:N test of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Rtphokie (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Had PRODded and a user improved it somewhat and removed the prod however the linked reference proves an album existed but no evidence that it or anything else by the artist charted. So not sure he passes WP:MUSIC. Doesn't seem to be an appropriate merge to the band since he was only with them briefly. Thoughts? StarM 12:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-administrator closure. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This should be a scientific/engineering term. However, searching for "Kuessner effect" gives no hits in Google Books, and only one hit in Google Scholar. While for an eponymous term one expects a significant coverage in the scientific literature. So: not notable, in my opinion Crowsnest (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. THF (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Abstain. THF (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT, into Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Also nominating Cheetah (Grand Theft Auto), San Andreas construction series, Xoomer and T.U.M.E. Construction cf38talk 11:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last AfD from two months ago ended in a no consensus, common sense tells me I should not do anything with this abandoned article without seeking input from AfD again. The article is still unencyclopedic (WP:NOT#PLOT), still non-notable (WP:N), and Frasier (season 6) already has a non-copied plot summary of equal depth so that nothing needs to be merged per the GFDL. No good reason left to keep this article and/or its page history, so Delete. – sgeureka t•c 11:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, website with no assertion of notability, hasn't even aired yet. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable YouTube show, fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL CultureDrone (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETED per CSD:A1 R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally speedily deleted via "A1: No context. Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.", for some reason has been restored. Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RADIO and WP:V cf38talk 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested on the grounds that this book series is notable. Unfortunately, I am unable to find independent sources that go beyond "where to buy it." The author is a redlink. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Nomination concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page containing nothing but redlinks. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this article before but it now claims national airplay on Triple J, which led me to decline A7. Although I searched everywhere I could think of, I could not find any sources that this band meets WP:MUSIC. SoWhy 10:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- and he never even actually got around to representing his ostensible Gitmo client, who pled guilty. Two primary sources, and one SMH source that doesn't even mention him by name. Article is redundant with David Hicks. THF (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary source, two sources that mention him in passing in the context of his client, each with the same quote. Everything else is sketchy resume details and an attempt to WP:PUFF his one quote ("Dorsey commented on a letter") into notability. THF (talk) 07:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E; notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. One primary reference; four references in passing in the context of his client. Mentioned once in the article of his client Mani Al-Utaybi, whom he apparently never met, or filed a valid court document on behalf of. THF (talk) 07:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:28, 14 March 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)) . |
Unnotable conspiracy theorist. While people have made attempts in his wiki page to make him look notable, when you check the sources used, they just mention him as someone involved in whatever conspiracy theory they are writing about, Jones is never or rarely the subject of an article himself, unless it's on some vanity press or local non reliable rag. All of his works are self published, apart from the radio show which is only available on the internet, or a couple of low power Christian shortwave stations and maybe a small local station or two, thats no better than self published in my opinion. I think it's time this page was removed, or perhaps as an alternative, just merged into some other article on 9/11 conspiracy theories or the like. Jones himself is not notable, he is at best a sideline in some other story. Please read the sources linked to on his page, and you will see what I mean. In the internet echo chamber he appears almost notable, due to a few active meatpuppets who he calls upon to spread his word (ie spam), but in the real world, he just really isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) — BimboBaggins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally called Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order and under that title I prodded it, as it was an article about a single paper that Matthew Dryer published, and I don't think individual papers are usually notable enough for encyclopedia articles. Even if a few are, this one isn't. The "solution" was to move the article to Matthew Dryer, under the claim that he is "a notable author". However, if he is, the article certainly doesn't show it, as the content of the article hasn't been significantly changed. The article is therefore now a mere coatrack, apparently being about a person but in fact still just being about one paper. —Angr 07:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, nothing here showing that Mr. Dryer is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Keep, thanks to Eric for his work on the article. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: page under discussion has been speedy deleted. FlyingToaster 09:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed. No indication of notability is given for this company. Two links are provided to a news source, but neither seems to mention this company. The talk page, username, and edits by article creator suggest a conflict of interest. FlyingToaster 06:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine but non-notable privately made film—fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) - "released for free online via Google Video". References are all either links to the original or mirrors of the Google video, or links to unrelated news stories. With exception of this not a single mention of the film by an outside source. Much is made of Google viewing data, but other than a single week in Australia in Nov 2008[45], it seems to have slipped back into relative obscurity. Was created by a single-purpose account User:Policies in December 2008 and linked to the 2002 Bali bombings article by a new user [46] at about the same time. Article has had no substantive edits by anyone else. Djanga 06:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Indonesian Australian relations article - with a proviso with the text or a footnote the conspiracy theory element to identify as such. The Indonesian and Australia projects have been fortunate not to have too many limited range articles regarding their relations - the essence of the material covered in the film needs to be inserted into another article - as I agree with the WP:N issue for such a film SatuSuro 09:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable radio program. No reliable sources are present that prove any notability. Subject seems to have received no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as is required per WP:NOTE. Also, article was started and has been mainly edited by the hosts of the radio program.Sloane (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. AfD is not a place to discuss mergers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been split from John Beilein by Levineps (talk · contribs), who is a highly productive article cleaner with an abnormally high propensity to split articles. Many of his splits have been reversed and some others are at AFD now. With respect to this article, I have asked on his talk page [47] [48] about why this article was split. I continue to await an explanation of whether he is familiar with a category for coaching records and examples of other coaches with their records split from their articles. I feel this split was unnecessary. I propose merging the information back into the main article. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that eight of these editors who !voted for this AfD: EastHills, A-Kartoffel, JoannaMinogue, JamesBurns, TheClashFan, HelenWatt, Marvin Ceee, Iam are socks of the same person, see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive Ikip (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially just a tracklist with few incoming links. No assertion to notability. Album did not chart, no singles released off it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as copyright violation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been completly copied from the Hannover Sevens website(see here).
Also, a similar article already exists under 2008 Hannover Sevens. EA210269 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webgame. No reliable sources proving notability . Fails to meet inclusion criteria per WP:NOTE. Sloane (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Until firm details are announced, pages for individual teams of a proposed league do not seem to be viable. The only information already appears in the United Football League (2008) page and all seems to be sourced from the league website. This raises notability concerns in addition to those of speculation. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patken4 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have a consensus here to Keep, can we get this confirmed by an admin?J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CRYSTAL is a strong argument. MBisanz talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. It is also unclear if this will be notable enough to warrant individual pages for any season (if one is even played). Since there is no information that is not already in the article United Football League (2008), there is nothing to merge. Hippopotamus (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Almost entirely unsourced, unlikely to ever be sourced beyond a stub, notability not established, the general "Underground" article was previously nominated for a selective merge to Linkin Park discography at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linkin Park Underground. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
Rehevkor ✉ 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website. Google searches turn up only the original domain. Page was deleted once previously. In addition, this may fall under WP:CONFLICT as the article's creator and primary writer seems to only have contributions that advertise the site. Teancum (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the updates since my nomination show that he is notable A new name 2008 (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Fails to meet inclusion guidelines for academics. No references to show he is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, notability demonstrated by snowball, nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet who twice earlier nominated the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is fails the notability guidelines particularly having multiple non-trivial coverage in published sources, although mentioned in passing in several places and that is has many sources, all but two of them only mention J Stalin about one time if at all, most sources establish facts irrespective of the subject of the article and do not establish notability, the subject also fails WP:BAND, previous nominations for deletion were never allowed to finish due to interference and bickering. This is a rapper of local interest, with no significant coverage and the article makes several dubious statements, such as using the artist's album notes as a source.Fails: WP:NM, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, Troyster87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a failed candidate for the US House of Representatives in 2008, which fails WP:POLITICIAN. Was de-proded for arguably meeting WP:GNG, but the cited AJC article is a human interest story that doesn't do anything for notability, and I was under the impression that any campaign coverage isn't enough either (this wasn't a close race or anything). BryanG (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I see no agreement about whether the sources are sufficiently specific, which is I think the main issue.. DGG (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This OR-magnet fails the general notability guideline in that the topic lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article survived a previous AfD, but has only deteriorated since then, and in its present form is pure OR: a sort of meandering essay on some perceived affinities between Wicca and Christianity, salted with a few Bible and other quotes; the references for the article relating directly to its subject derive principally from quasi-essays on personal websites or blogs. The OR and substandard sourcing would not by themselves form a rationale for deletion if they were correctable, but they're not: once you subtract the OR, even from the earliest versions of the article, there's really no article left, and no reliable sources you could use to create one. The sole text apparently dedicated to the topic doesn't appear to describe a set of beliefs or practices that any actual group of people ever held or engaged in, and one of the most extensive online sources I found on the topic turned out to be an adaptation of the Wikipedia article. While there appear to be some number of people active on the internet who evidently would like to combine some aspects of Wicca and Christianity -- hence the Google hits on the phrase "Christian Wicca" -- there's little evidence that they form any identifiable group who hold in common any halfway-coherent set of beliefs or practices such that you could say with confidence that something called "Christian Wicca" even exists, let alone meets WP:N. --Rrburke(talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event; reads like an advertisement. No references to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are just listings of songs based on listener voter tallies/requests [according to the article European Hit Radio Top 40, which I redirected to European Hit Radio (which itself has neutrality issues)] --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography, few Google hits and no Google news hits. Prod was removed by swigzracing, a group affiliated with the subject. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Article is a copy of the intro to the Iraq War main article. It would require a complete rewrite to make it a new article. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 00:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a neologism. Other than the Wikipedia article, Google gets only one hit, from a doctor who purports to treat the condition, and Google Scholar gets no hits, indicating that the term is not used in the medical literature. A request to the author for sources that use the term has gone unanswered. Looie496 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement for small theatre company. No suggestion of notability, and the creation of COI account Ytouring (talk · contribs). Calton | Talk 13:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is this article an advert when they are not a commercial company?
It seems like a theatre company that invented a model of theatre practice i.e 'theatre of debate' might have some notibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedomface (talk • contribs) 14:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're pretty tasty, but do they really need an article? I can't find a single source pertaining to the food item proper, and I see virtually nothing worth merging to Taco Bell if we can hardly even verify what goes into it. Also, the article has been orphaned since November 06 and tagged for OR since September 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of participants in the creation-evolution controversy . MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable, marginal organization in pseudoscience community. Tagged as an orphan for a year and for notablity in September. Brief mentions in three books don't assert importance. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article has been deleted as 'created by serial hoaxer' who has, as Nick-D notes, been blocked for this behaviour. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(PROD removed without explanation by creator) Unreferenced, Non-notable soldier. A google search turns up 1 site which isn't a Wikipedia mirror. No news/scholar hits, but one books hit. Seems to have done nothing extraordinary in his career as a soldier. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find anything that states that this site is notable. Unless I'm missing something, this site appears to fail WP:WEB. — neuro(talk) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed without comment. No claim of notability, all the references are irrelevant. Black Kite 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable anonymous author. Only links are primary sources. Topic seems to be just a advert hook to a blog page. Doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Mikeblas (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. On google I can see download sites that carry it and a couple reviews in personal websites [68]. Best source I could find is a 2002 review from the owner of Sitepoint, who calls it "yet another variation of the NoteCenter concept"[69]. The only source in the article is a single review in wikipedia which is signed by the software maker[70] (doh). Enric Naval (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this short BLP article about a writer has been unsourced for 2+ years; his books don't seem notable - indeed none is carried by Amazon.com only used copies available through third party suppliers and no indication that he meets WP:BIO any other way either. Again, sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born and haven't heard news of him in a sufficiently long time that we cannot really say he's still alive with confidence. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep...Stephan is currently producing television shows and working on his next book.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are zero sources available which gives this "airline" any notability. Am thinking it is quite possibly a hoax. Russavia Dialogue 13:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Via where can I provide you with documentation? my e-mail: s.chin@caricomairways.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.2.190.58 (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Renegade Five. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no information given aside from one sentence (which is a general summary) Ejg930 (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a PROD on this article that was quickly removed, article concerns non notable architect that is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Paste Let’s have a chat. 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 09:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Instructional DVD. The author/instructor is notable, the DVD itself is not. Delete, or at the very least merge to Blackbird (album). Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google search reveals Wikipedia mirror sites only -- as well as what might be a small role in a film. But I can find no reliable sources whatsoever establishing notability for this film critic/historian. What's more, the "Controversy" section is a complete non sequitur, given over to a personal essay of some kind -- nothing to do with article's subject, at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be much by way of reliable sources looking through google for this guy. It's been an unreferenced BLP for over 2 years, and he's sufficiently nn that we don't know when or where he was born or whether he's really still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. This isn't the Otago University Rugby Club, whiich would be notable - it's simply one of the social teams which plays in the University's competition. Hardly of any particular note even locally, let alone beyond Dunedin. NOTE: Looks like it has had a CSD notice attached to it at some point which was removed by the article's creator. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite any relevant sources, and no effort has been made to find them since the page was tagged 5 months ago. Article should be deleted under WP:NOR Jonovision (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. The Article highlights a baseball rivalry between the Boston Red Sox and Tampa Bay Rays. Should we keep this? –BuickCenturyDriver 10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Speedy tag was removed with "(decline speedy - may be notable (check Google News))", so I did check Google News, and got only three articles, none of them proof of notability. In addition, all three of the hits are to www.pressdisplay.com, which is a compendium of back articles from a variety of newspapers, but every one of them is apparently removed from pressdisplay's database, so even if you wanted to pay to read them, they're no longer available. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Myst (series). MBisanz talk 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, notability not established, I can't picture it ever being established, nor can I picture it being developed into an sourced article that isn't just a list of locations. I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reasons, if not more:
Rehevkor ✉ 23:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. A simple google search on Mysterium + Convention turns out plenty of RS which can be used to establish notability. Instead of pulling the AfD trigger, there are many ways to flag an article for sourcing... or even improve it directly. MLauba (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)