The result was merge to Ustream.tv. MBisanz talk 07:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability. The only claim of notability is in founding Ustream.tv, and the information about their founding of the website can easily be merged with Ustream.tv. Outside of that website, there's nothing here which requires separate articles for the cofounders. IIIVIX (Talk) 23:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages (Co-founder with John Ham, same reasoning as above):
The result was withdrawn by nominator, nobody !voted to delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to STS-119. MBisanz talk 00:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
neologism DougsTech (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of schools in the South West of England#Primary Schools. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks notability and doesn't appear notable enough to merge into another article. BarretBonden (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Unreleased albums (this is actually an unreleased EP) are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be lagely original research. The only source in the article refers to Preadolescence not a generation. neon white talk 21:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article for non notable author. I checked the ISBNs of the two books listed under the books section with WorldCat, and the first brings up no results for all of the US and the second shows only two libraries. The sptimes.com ref only establishes that he and some friends bought some paint once for $11 and put it on a wall. Other refs are not independent nontrivial etc. as required. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Material is game guide, and is not notable through present sources; if there is content to be merged (likely a mention of his "trademark" Silverballers which can be stated from a first-pass check of google hits) this can put pushed to the Hitman (series) article. The article itself here is an unlikely search term so I don't believe there's a need to retain a redirect. MASEM (t) 19:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WP:SNOW delete an unverifiable and probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable film made by an unremarkable company (whose article was recently speedy deleted). Prod removed. Cycle~ (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician: could not find any references to "Charlie Shaabi" or "Charlie Hanna Shaabi" or "Charlie Shaabie" in reliable sources. tedder (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete / userfied to User:Jarry1250/World Multiple Sclerosis Day, good chances it will be WP worthy in the near future, so why not having someone looking forward for it? - Nabla (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "day". Four Google hits outside of Wikipedia, no Google news hits. Speedy deletion tag removed by a "new" user whose entire edit history is to edit war to remove speedy deletion tags. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a hoax. I cannot find any sources relating to the family. Even if it is true this is original resarch. It may even be that the list of notable people aren't related. DFS454 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A chess programmer of dubious and possibly false notability, according to some google search results. - 7-bubёn >t 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to The Presidents of the United States of America (band). MBisanz talk 05:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable early song by a notable group. Fails WP:NSONGS. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closing - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Shaabie Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician: could not find any references to "Charlie Shaabi" or "Charlie Hanna Shaabi" in reliable sources.
Not eligible for Speedy, user deleted prod. tedder (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy del CSD:G5 - article by banned user. - 7-bubёn >t 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by a now-blocked sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user User:Florentino_floro, and the article is about the blocked user himself. It seems his recent indefinite block on Wikinews has driven him to back here.
There is no notable information in this article that is not already covered in the Florentino Floro article. Further argument by User:Maxschmelling: "Per discussion at the Law WikiProject, individual cases are not notable just by virtue of being mentioned in the press. Notability in terms of individual cases is determined by the significance of the issue or the decision. Generally, it seems, cases need to be mentioned in casebooks or to be foundational in some way to be considered notable as cases. This one doesn't stand up. The defendent is barely notable himself and there is no significant issue of law at stake."
Also, I must pre-emptively warn that the blocked user is very likely to participate in this discussion with extremely long and rambling diatribes (such as this), under the guise of various sockpuppets or IP addresses. TheCoffee (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax article. Google comes up with no hits, the London Gazette has no mention of him in any possible search configuration I could see. As a General and an MP he would be listed numerous times if this was indeed a real person. The only 5th division of the British Army was the 5th Infantry Division (United Kingdom), there was no Welsh one as far as I am aware. This combined with the article creator's name being Jimhilk (talk · contribs), this is an obvious hoax. Woody (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Plot section (now removed) was WP:COPYVIO from Anime News Network, and character section just translated from JA wiki.[4] Licensed in Chinese and that's it. No significant coverage in that language either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the prod: This is someone posting a resume on Wikipedia, clearly against what Wikipedia is not. I will also add that I cannot find any reliable sources [6] that can establish any notabililty of this person; nothing but Wikipedia mirrors. MuZemike 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aas far as I can tell, there is no actual documentation that this category exists in NATO terminology. Therefore, this article needs to be deleted, or updated with the actual source. Note: I checked the STANAG 2116 online, and I find no reference to the ranks listed in this article, with the exception of Midshipman in the UK, which is considered OF-1. Kirk (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, all the NATO rank articles have tables with OF(D), and many have ranks listed which need to be changed. Kirk (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Andy Dill. MBisanz talk 05:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article doesn't establish that the subject is notable Willy turner (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only non-trivial reference found after good faith news archive search is feature on company in local ("metropolitan area" population < 300,000) paper. Bongomatic 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that the band meets the notability criteria. No mention of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources Papa November (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn nomination: Well done guys, you've added some good information to the article. I'm happy that it now explains the band's notability, based on
I'm now happy for the article to stay. Papa November (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G10. wodup 09:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be about a real enough person, but the only real content is about him failing at a reality show. He doesn't seem notable or important enough to be included. —LedgendGamer 09:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable political candidate fails WP:BIO. The article isn't sourced but you can read about him here. I also found this which mentions him injuring his arm as a youth leader, but this and other mentions are in passing. This is what the article's creator said at Talk:U P Joseph:
Agreed that a person doesn't qualify for the notability criteria just because of his candidature for a political election; but a person who is representing a powerful political combine, and has a chance of winning the election does deserve to be considered notable. This article is more of a work-in-progress article and you will find references and citations, and yeah enough reasons to justify notability in a couple of days. please hold on. thank you! - User:Leftnwrite 06:28, 18 March 2009
While U P Joseph has held various appointments, I don't think he is notable enough for Wikipedia. I don't want to discourage this new user, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertise goods, services, or political candidates. - Boston (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax, Wycombe Wanderers' current number 9 is Matt Harrold, and there is no record of this player being on the club's books. Might be notable if he had played for the other clubs listed, which include some of the very top clubs in Italy, Portugal and elsewhere, but Google returns precisely zero hits on his name, so that seems untrue as well. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who has never played professionally, article freely admits that he is only a part-timer and that his main job is working in his father's gardening business. Probable WP:COI based on suspiciously high level of knowledge of the player's personal life. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article and removed the Advert tag. Gathering of more data and external references will come next. Do any of you folks consider this one rescued yet? ;] Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 21:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 05:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined Speedy. Autobiograhy. There are very few GHits for Aren Ober and none at all for Aren Savalan. The publisher Cotter Books has no other authors and has no significant GHits other than its web page - it certainly looks like a vanity publisher. The external link is a mirror of the publisher's web page Porturology (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting family history, but hardly valid for an encyclopedia article. None of these O'Neills have been notable in their own right, and the sources are either blogs or genealogy sites, both of which fail WP:RS. We have Irish immigration to Puerto Rico; that should suffice. Biruitorul Talk 06:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Damn it is a nice article, too nice. It is a case of plagiarism. This article was pasted from here: Clan Abba Forums which has the following copyright: Copyright ©2000 - 2009. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The merge "votes" do not address the fact that the material itself is spammy in nature. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page seems to be little more than a hybrid of an advertisement and a list of instructions. CopaceticThought (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. No grounds for deleting this article stated in nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I do not know if this is the right forum for this discussion. But we have been asked by our client Citibank Philippines to remove their current page on wikipedia. Can you get the needful done? Is there anything more formalties that need to be completed for the same. Thomas db (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Thomas_Db[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization. No references showing notability. Mikeblas (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. I will take you guys' word on it about notability, but I do hope to see some context added to the article so that is actually meaningful to people. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this subject meets our notability requirements. There are very few reliable sources in the article to establish Lau's notability; the few references that are actually about Lau are from the website of his own "clan" or training center (for example, this), and most of the rest seem to be about things other than Lau (for example, current refs 6–10 are about the accomplishments of a couple of his students). As far as I can tell, he doesn't fit into any of the inclusion criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (people). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Kirby characters . MBisanz talk 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through multiple reliable sources. In-universe details that are important to a plot in any of the Kirby media, Smash Bros series, etc belongs to that respective article. « ₣M₣ » 02:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable organization that gets very few ghits and no gnews hits. All sources are primary no sign of any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Forward planning failure (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. speedy/snow/borderlineG-11/spamvertisement StarM 00:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy db-spam deletion because I can't rule out the possibility with a Google search that they have the notability they claim (but I couldn't establish it either, from Google or from any of the main menu links on their site); paring the promotionalism; taking to AfD; notifying WP:CAR. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor league baseball player that has no claim of notability. Google news search returns just 8 hits, most of which are published by Univ of Michigan. Can be recreated when he plays at a level that previous consensus has accepted as substantial for notability or he otherwise gains notability. Grsz11 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. With the comment that the part of WP:NFF that says ...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." refers only to films that have begun production. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was tagged speedy for no context, but there is sufficient context to figure out what this article claims it's about. It's still WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8Delete per nom and others: WP:NFF & [WP:N]]. Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Strong consensus to delete. MBisanz talk 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software programming package, no assertion of notability. The use of the term "yet another" in the lead section is a sign that there is no notability to be found for this anywhere. Additionally, the package creator's name (Alexey Morozov) matches that of the article creator, and his e-mail address is included. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling you don't have a clue what we mean by notability. Start the article once the product becomes well-known, not so that it becomes well-known. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy delete (G12) as a copy-vio of. http://tocxx.110mb.com/. Tagged as such. Themfromspace (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. This is not the place for what you are doing. Your own web site is the place for this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, whose content must be verifiable, neutral, freely copyright licenced, and free from original research. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets exist for publishing creator-written documentation of the heretofore undocumented and the heretofore unknown. One of those outlets is your own WWW site, that you pay for. Wikipedia's remit covers existing human knowledge, not attempts by people to add to it by writing directly in the encyclopaedia. Such shortcuts around the proper process of publication, fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge are not allowed. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Mr. Morozov's latest reply to me has just convinced me that WP:DENY applies here. This editor is wikilawyering, and not being very good at it. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously in October 2008. Eight half-hour episodes in 1987. Starred red-linked actor. Being broadcast on the BBC Radio 2 is not sufficient for notability. StarM 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Sears Holdings Corporation. MBisanz talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to have any independent notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN Unable to find independent verifiable info. Self-promotion more than anything. Taroaldo (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would be happy to provide you with all supporting documentation, please let me know to what email address.
I've uploaded some supported information and checked these guidelines. I'll be uploading the discography soon. Please review the article and let me know if it is according to your guidelines. Thanks.
Hi, I'm uploading evidences from newspapers and magazines. These are obviously verifiable sources which you can check by requesting the original to the country of origin. The problem is I obviously don't control the copyrights to these so I would like you to review a few that i've uploaded, and the rest I would like to simply send them to you via email, so that you can review the info and verify that they are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivancillo (talk • contribs) 19:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Plenty good enough consensus below and Emperor covers everything we need to look at policy and guidance wise. This is not a speedy candidate though, the article subject matter does not meet the crieria enshrined in ((db-inc)). I don't see the value in keeping this open any longer, and I'd point out that proposed deletion might be a better venue for similar articles in the future. Hiding T 11:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, and no evident sources to establish it. Very few Google Web hits relevant to the topic, none of which seem to be independent and/or reliable; zero hits on Google News or Google Books. Fails WP:N. Deor (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by WereSpielChequers (CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something made up in school one day apparently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No independent RS document the assertions herein, despite the time and fervency of those arguing that it should be kept. I will provide a copy for userification and help coach someone who wants to make this meet Wikipedia standards, assuming that it's possible to do so. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 22 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)) . |
After some research, I have been able to find no indication that this church is notable. This includes an inability to find sources in specialist religious periodicals, including those that tend to cover NRMs and fringe religious groups. As the article asserts notability, CSD is not an option and thus I am raising it for discussion. Vassyana (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Despite a seeming lack of sources (I know they're out there, I've seen several instance of coverage in the past), this is one of a very small number of Neo-gnostic churches in a movement that has gotten increasing attention in recent years. I'm also confused as to why Hoeller's work is 'notable,' but the work of AJC members is not? Infinitysnake (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So according to some, USN&WR is not independent and reliable. An established and respected theological press (Apocryphile) is not independent and reliable. PanGaia magazine is not independent and reliable. This sets an impossibly high bar for *any* NRM to be noteworthy if the work done by individuals in the name of the organization is to be consistently excluded. The question is, how useful does Wikipedia want to be in researching contemporary Gnosticism or New Religious Movements altogether? Seeing as every available survey of contemporary Gn includes reference to the AJC, who is served by its omission here? There's an active dialogue going on in the 9 official bodies of the AJC, in many more informal groups discussing AJC materials and theology and praxis. Gnosticism in general is generating a lot of published work and scholarly debate. Does Wikipedia wish to be a relevant resource in this legitimate arena of research? In which case, the article should stand and be expanded. If not, it needs to begin deleting a host of less active, less populated and less vocal organizations within modern Gnosticism and the Independent Sacramental Movement. What's it going to be? - Jordan Stratford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.155.157 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
notability of this band is not established in the article. Rtphokie (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to suggest that this zoo is notable either in wiki terms or in zoo terms. The article contains no refs and although not much more than a basic stub what is there is written along the lines of an advert. WebHamster 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established --Docku: What's up? 18:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page should be merged into The Ultimate Fighter 5. We don't need a separate article covering just the finale. Antivenin 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks significant 3rd party coverage (article lacks any references at all), is co-script coordinator credits on a TV show enough for noability? Rtphokie (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- [User]Jamie JCA[Talk] 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This article was also tagged for ((notability)), ((advert)) and ((unreferenced)) as it seemed to be promotional in tone. There's nothing to indicate notability here. Rodhullandemu 13:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination was withdrawn. Subject has now played professionally. StarM 00:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable youth player. He played in 1.Liga but not in the scope of fully-professional league. Secondly, there is no prove he played for Swiss U21 as no name in official stats. in the 2008 matches. Matthew_hk tc 09:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few reasons why I feel this page should be deleted, but I'm not certain that this is the case. The page seems to be advertising for this person's company, Diamante Pictures, especially in the last few sentences of the biography section. I suppose this can be rewritten, but the person may not be notable enough to qualify for WP:NOTE. The article makes no reference to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," that the notablility guideline states, and I also fear that such coverage does not exist. It has no references that illustrate this point; the only working external link is a link to the company's website, and the IMDB link does not work. Moreover, it was created by User:CreativeCross, and when the userpage's edit history is examined, it is clear that this user is Benjamin DeJesus or is affiliated with Benjamin DeJesus. This could be a conflict of interest, as someone may have just created the page to make them appear notable when they aren't, possibly even to use as a way, when communicating with clients, to make themselves seem more well-known. Maybe this is not enough to make the article qualify for deletion, but I still think that it deserves to be listed and discussed. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Rubi. MBisanz talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Crystalball article. ABS-CBN had not yet confirmed if this show will eventually air or had begun production. -danngarcia (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
article about a new newspaper, lacks circulation numbers or other assertion of notability (author removed prod) -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Fast food. MBisanz talk 07:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any claim of notability is tied to the lawsuit. Subject is not notable beyond a single event and there is no justification for a separate biographical article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I agree that Barber is significant only because of his lawsuit, but it seems clear that the lawsuit is significant. It got massive press coverage in 2002, and Nexis shows continuing discussion of the case in the global media in 2007 (article in Business Day of South Africa) and 2008 (Nation's Restaurant News). I find references to something also called the "Stella Awards," which are some kind of award given to an outrageous or ridiculous lawsuit filing, and Barber's suit seems to have won one. Uucp (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion on renaming can take place on the article talk page. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established, no references, uncited, very vague - could refer to various games made up in school which are not called Penny football GTD 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No verifiable sources found for an encyclopedia article. A Google and Google News search turned up only a few sealed sites referring to random court cases and a notice that the daughter of an owner of PPC had married someone from NBC News in New York. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTE. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strip mall with only a couple stores. Sources comprise dead links, a primary source, and a store locator. Seems to entirely lack coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
almost three years after the fact the only impact this dinner has had has been in afd's. it's made them worse. people wantonly violate WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and cite this article. for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, etc (do a search for colbert on those pages to see the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS violations). per WP:POKEMON, the solution seems obvious - remove this article per WP:RECENTISM, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOT#NEWS. the citations are all for naught, as well. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run had lots of citations and it got deleted. rightfully so, too - citations alone are not enough. if this article was deleted no one would care enough to recreate it in this depth because the recentism appeal wouldn't be there.
that this was a former front page featured article is of little consequence - Talk:Torchic was a former front page featured article and look at its fate. Misterdiscreet (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep: Per JulesH's logic (very well put). DP76764 (Talk) 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Being featured in an article on maxim.com is not enough nor is being a reporter for a TV show that's not notable enough to have its own wikipedia article (XLTV). The (non existent?) Wall Street Journal article does nothing to establish notability either per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NPF, etc. Misterdiscreet (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]