The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laundry list of contestants on WWTBAM. Except for Carpenter, none of these contestants is individually notable, so why lump them all into a list? This is nothing but a list of miscellaneous information, and the first time I've seen the trivia trag at the TOP of the article. I see no way that this can be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Leslie P. Peirce. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "keep". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Sean Goldman. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was redirect to Inauguration of Barack Obama. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created with text copied from Inauguration of Barack Obama. There was no discussion to split the article. Editors of main article do not wish to separate this text from article at this time, see Talk:Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama#New_articles.3F. Thanks. Aaron charles (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn and a very clear consensus for keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable list Skitzo (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not an encyclopaedic topic. What is notable about the passwords for a manufacturer's remote management cards? This is how-to stuff from the same source that gave us Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dell DRAC Remote SSH Console Redirection. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was } delete as complete and utter nonsense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a neologism. My WP:PROD nomination was contested by the article's creator on its talk page, so I removed the tag. Unscented (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In [OTRS Ticket#2009010810024398] at https://ticket.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=2333277&ArticleID=2752114&QueueID=59 (for those with OTRS access), a representative for the BLP subject presented the subject's request that the article be removed.
This is a housekeeping action only, I have no opinion as to the outcome. - Philippe 22:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by COI editor, non notable and self referenced theory linked to book by relation of creator also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald R. Griffin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilliard Guy Griffin Mfield (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. In the future, it may be better to discuss case edits on talk pages rather than mass lumping of articles for AfD, as it makes it impossible to sort out issues. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't appear to be very useful for an encyclopedia. The content is entirely unreferenced and might be better suited for Wikibooks. At the very least, referenced mentions of their use in traditional Chinese medicine should be incorporated into our articles on these plants (or not? - WP:UNDUE). All articles being considered for deletion/discussion under this nomination are below. Rkitko (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown to Google. I suspect he and his friend Charleston Millar are a hoax. William Avery (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even this author's "more famous works" are, like himself and his pseudonyms, unknown to Google. I suspect he and his friend Thomas Edmund Smythe are a hoax. William Avery (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. I'm closing this, since the nomination obviously no longer applies to the current version of the article. Mgm|(talk) 12:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while the topic may be encyclopedic, this beginning is not helpful in its creation. I think we should start it again, sourced, rather than starting with an unsourced extraordinary claim. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, no notable characteristics, no notable incidents surrounding it. It appears to be quite new, maybe from 2008. On google I can only find the download review at ZDNet and its own support forum Enric Naval (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Student film of unclear notability. Google search for "Bryan Fernando" "Where is God" results in four links. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 20:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a surname? a caste? a tribe? no indication of notability whatever it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by Akradecki as A7. {NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability of this group; no sources; no significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopaedic article, pretty ridiculous title Jack (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the AFD for List of hospice-related topics this doesn't have any function beyond that of a category and Category:Management already exists. It doesn't even have any of the redlinks which seem to be keeping List of BDSM topics alive. Benefix (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a young artist with limited notablity at this time. The only references appear to be word-of-mouth, and therefore not reliable. In order for this to even be considered an accpetable article, it would need to be edited down to a stub. It's essentially about one work. However, the references at this point are not verifiable. freshacconci talktalk 19:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with List of hip hop singers, a pointless list which is better served by categories. Benefix (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the AFD for List of Vocalists the category is more than enough for this infinitely expandable list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists. Benefix (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes
As with the AFD for List of Vocalists the category is more than enough for this infinitely expandable list. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of keyboardists. Benefix (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people actually prefer categories, and they do have their uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devicesthat other people find useful. As this list gives the name of the groups, it provides more information than a category could. DGG (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this doesn't pass WP:BIO. The subject does not seem to have been the subject of multiple independant articles, except for 2 reviews, the only other sources seem self published. Delete TheRingess (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Credibility I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC) — Board56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a musical recording (album, single, etc.) that does not indicate the importance of the subjectQuestionOfAnarchy (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a directory of courses offered by a university. Elcosamagna (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted Aside from the organization itself not being notable, the band Gwar's name is indicated to not mean or stand for anything (as indicated on their own wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwar#Etymology )-=Worloq=- (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nicole Scherzinger. As pointed out below, references don't necessarily mean it doesn't fall afoul of CRYSTAL. Per general precendent I've seen elsewhere and sensible comments below, letting a redirect go ahead so that relevant info can be folding into a more proper location in parent article. Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence when or if this will be produced, nor is there evidence of what will be on the album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL Ejfetters (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is evidence of its release. one of the references in the article says that the album will be released some time after doll domination. i dont think it should be deleted as of yet.
The album will be released after the PCD tour and two singles of the album have been released.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The former version of HL was a very small game that might be confused with the current game. I don't see any reason to continue this article. No Annuities (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability with the German or English spellings of his name. Scarcely a claim to notability and ghits establish only some self published links. StarM 02:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless, and pointless topic. Most people in the talk page seem to think it should be deleted. I also feel the same way. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a general rule, every category should support a list also if people are willing to make them. Some people prefer categories, and they do have their unique uses, but that is no reason to remove navigational devices that other people find useful. As a list gives associated information, such as the military conflicts involved s, it provides more information than a category ever could. I did some cleanup. Dividing the list might be reasonable, and could be discussed separately. As should be needless to say, it doesn't violate NOTDIRECTORY, for it lists only the notable 0.001% or so with wp articles (or red links qualified for them). What "baseless' or "pointless" means in this context i cannot determine. DGG (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just think creating a category instead would be better. Or else son, you'll have a List of Hindu Soldiers and List of Christian soldiers, and soon Wikipedia would become a Wiki-battlefeld of religions. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that there is a list of Hindu soldiers as well, which is being well maintained. If we maintain this article equally well, and make sure terrorists are not a part of it, then it can go upto the status of a featured article. So I guess, we can close the AfD and keep the article.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so lets us all pretend that this AfD never existed, and leave this article for Wikiproject Islam to pickup and maintain. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails V with no footnoted RS including info about BLPs, fails wp:music with no albums for this band, written like a spammy, COI, MySpace page. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-28t08:31z 08:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect, preserving the history for GFDL compliance. Mackensen (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
very insignificant fictional characters, hardly enough real world information to give them their own articles, no where apparent to merge either Ejfetters (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Twinkle stole my long-winded rationale, so here's the digest version:) Fails WP:NB by miles. Zilch references / sources / GHits. Author's page (same creator) CSD'd under A7. Prod removed. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of elements by stability of isotopes. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article that claims to list "all radioactive elements"; previously PRODed and SecondedPRODed; all elements have radioactive isotopes, so the list would have to list all elements and their respective levels with radioactive isotopes —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 17:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - The point of the article is to show which elements have only radioactive isotopes. Chlorine Trifluoride (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the sources cited give this phrase primary notability; merely, they show unrelated examples of the phrase's use. HeniousMacaw (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Others more knowledgeable about club level play in Colombia let me know if I'm off the mark. It is unclear if this young player has risen to the level of play to warrant an encyclopedia entry. He can be mentioned on the club entry so that seems adequate. The content is not directly sourced and seems outdated if the club article is accurate (not sourced in a language that I can read.) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no sources and this book does not seem to be notable. Its author, Pío Andrade, Jr., does seem to be notable but his article also has some issues. The subject of the book, Carlos P. Romulo, was an important figure in the history of the Philippines. This article serves mainly as a WP:Coatrack to make allegations against him, as does Dr. Andrade's to a lesser extent. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources support the claims in the article. Can't find any relevant ghits. Possibly just a hoax. Closest thing I can find is Michael Mifsud but it seems totally unrelated except for a Maltese connection. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, and an autobiography to boot. Claims of notability arise from a pageant that, as best I can determine from Google news searches, serves only as a parody or spoof of actual beauty pageants. (See [5]) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). E Wing (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 14:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band who fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Has released 3 non-notable albums on some non-notable labels. Searching brings up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 14:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SNOW DGG (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either someone posting their own poem, which Wikipedia is not for, or someone posting someone else's poem, in which case we can delete as a copyright infringement. I don't think any speedy criteria apply, though. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 14:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poem-'one dark night' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm trying to get rid of this page. There is no such treaty, I see no news reports of current progress or negotiations towards such a treaty. When I nommed once before, some stuff got added about Australia's general policy towards international exchange of prisoners, not really to the point. Sure, there might be such a treaty someday, but WP:CRYSTAL. Time to make an end of this article. Wehwalt (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My prod was removed by an anoymous IP editor. Reason for prod was "I saved this from speedy as at the time the article was suggesting that he'd palyed once for Southend United first team, who play in a fully professional league so if true he'd probably have met WP:Athlete (depending on what sort of game it was). That claim has now been removed and I can't find any references to him having played for the first team, hence delete for failing notability requirements." Dpmuk (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, particularly given the dramatic improvement the article underwent mid-AfD. Mackensen (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NN, OR, somewhat self-promo. Game over. roux 13:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Crumb. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is an orphaned stub. There has not been any significant work done on this stub in years. Content of article contains nothing which is not found in the articles it lists. Content is better suited for a navbox which has been created. Danleary25 (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
lacks notability. References are a link farm to IMDB. Zero google news hits. Google web hits are generally to his blog. Articles was created by and largely edited by Lew Marklin (talk · contribs). Rtphokie (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the article, it seems quite evident that it fails WP:ORG, hence why I nominate for deletion rather than starting with the ((notability)) tag. Not a speedy candidate, however. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 12:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable MMORPG video game with little or no media coverage (Google news archive searches—here and here). Created by a single-purpose account. The game's Beta release is scheduled for "the end of 2009" i.e. the game's not even finished yet. Fails WP:NOTE. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. I created the article. It is not "my game" and I have nothing to gain by its publication. I just happen to know that thousands of people play it every day and that it can be considered "Beta" because they are not wiping some items upon release. This will eventually be a mainstream game...all that remains is a few months. Please do not be so hasty to delete this inoffensive, important article. Thank you very much. Epicahab (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was WITHDRAWN. I've reviewed this further, and have come to the conclusion that it would be more beneficial, encyclopedically, to be moved from the original article to the article on the painting, contrary to my original assertion. My original reading of the situation was flawed, I think; it seemed to me that the painting article was simply pasted, but I see potential for expansion here having just rifled through Google Books. There would indeed be too much content for the military article, and this is what has changed my mind. Therefore, I apologise for the expenditure of time and the error. I would be happy to presently assist with the movement of the text from one article to the other; this really does need to happen, because redundancies like this are unhealthy and are not proper. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFORK of Black Brunswickers#Inspired art. Pretty much exactly copy-pasted. -- —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was procedural close. Reverting series of bad faith nominations by notorious AfD trolling sockpuppet. Wikidemon (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not notable, any claims therein are not verified by reliable or any other sources. A single reference is provided. Searches found no reliable non-trivial coverage in published sources. Troyster87 (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Papatoetoe. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on single congregation, which fails to assert notability., => fails WP:CHURCH. No independent sourcing. dramatic (talk) 09:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin speedy closure) Master&Expert (Talk) 09:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing apparently meeting WP:BIO. Normally, I'd call for a ((notability)) tag first, but based on the amount of WP:WEASEL words, I am fairly convinced notability cannot be established. If it can, quickly enough, I'll withdraw my nomination, of course. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 09:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the poor writing and layout, she fails WP:PORNBIO. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Booth doesn't appear to be especially significant. None of the "Artcles and media" references indicate she is notable. She doesn't seem to have received any major awards. I've Googled her for a while but can't find anything non-trivial. A bit iffy (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus on whether the article meets the threshold for the song notability guideline. In the interests of disclosure I do read German and it wasn't clear to me either. Mackensen (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article on song with no real indication of notability. Unsourced. Prod removed for a pointy reason Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
This song only charted on one chart, the Billboard Hot 100, at #87, and seems unlikely to grow beyond a few mere sentences in length. Delete. Don't fall asleep zzzzzz 08:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Extreme Programming. MBisanz talk 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a proposed technique, how can it be notable? RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on the games company which is producing this PC Game, there is no official company website (that I can find), so it looks like either this game is fake or never going to happen, see no reason to keep this article around as there is nothing official on this. Afkatk - The Mind Reader (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Unencyclopaedic and likely to be, or become, inaccurate. Should be deleted for much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparision of online remittance services in United Kingdom for sending money to India. PROD removed without explanation by IP. DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what you write above, your actions are based upon your lack of understanding of our Wikipedia:Article development process and our Wikipedia:Editing policy. The fact that an article is currently a stub says nothing about the subject. You're wrong to think that way. Most of Wikipedia is currently stubs. All of Wikipedia (with a vanishingly small number of exceptions) was a stub once. The provenances and depths of the sources available are what counts. They show whether an article can be expanded from its beginnings as a stub. And that very process of starting from a stub and expanding is how articles have been written here for the past eight years.
This is a collaboratively written project. Put in the effort to collaboratively write. Look at the sources available for any given subject, and attempt to expand the article from them. Kerrrzapping a price list and transforming it into a good start of an article on remittances to India you will find rewarding, not least because you will know that you've transformed a poor article into a good one. Trust me. ☺ So follow the various "find sources" links above, pick a source, and start writing. Begin with Goopta's IMF report if you like. It has some verifiable facts in its second paragraph that you could put straight into this article. (Hint: What quadrupled between 1991 and 2003? It wasn't a population of elephants. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is now effectively a completely new article and should be considered as such. I guess somebody could complain that doing this circumvented the right of anybody who wanted to vote "keep" on the original article, but that was so unlikely to happen that I don't have a problem with it.
I still think that it would be better as a section within the remittance article where the subject can be given a more global perspective and the common elements in all remittance systems covered without duplication. This need not be at the expense of having good solid coverage of the Indian remittance industry. It is not like the remittance article is too large or unwieldy as it stands. That said, I am now persuaded that it could be a separate article, although I still see this as the second best option at this stage. Accordingly, my recommendation on the new article is weak merge with a second preference of "keep".
I am not sure how we should approach the AfD from now on as the whole thing is a bit moot. I would be happy to withdraw the nomination but some people have already voted to delete, based on the old content. I guess we have to let the closing admin decide how to handle that?
Although we disagree about some things, we are both trying to achieve the same thing, i.e. to remove poor content and add, or facilitate the adding, of good content. Can we try to make the tone a bit less aggressive in future?
--DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking notablity. All it lists is a Weezerpedia site, and I can't seem to find any reliable sources on Google. Versus22 talk 05:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable relationships, there is nothing notable on having some habitants from a country living in another country. Article does not assert anything extraordinary. Prod was removed. See related deletions:
Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web television series, I did originally PROD it, but that was removed. I don't think speedy is appropriate here, as "... has become popular among the Saskatchewan community ..." appears to be at the very least asserting some notion of the program not being straight out CSDable. Unable to find any sources or reliable third party coverage. — neuro(talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything encyclopedic here should be in the main article for the school; anything else violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. THF (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to National_University_of_Sciences_and_Technology#Profile. MBisanz talk 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPAM. Anything encyclopedic here should be in National University of Sciences and Technology, anything else violates WP:NOT. THF (talk) 03:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Massachusetts Lottery. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
94 year old woman in the news in 2004 for an unsuccessful lawsuit to receive a lottery jackpot as a lump sum (Massachusetts Lottery only pays annuities.) Fails WP:BLP1E a google search reveals that this is the only event she has been noted for - Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the mention in Massachusetts Lottery is more than sufficient. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Legal Advisor (OARDEC). MBisanz talk 02:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO currently without any WP:RS; has had a notability tag for over a year without improvement. It would be possible to WP:PUFF up the article by stringing together the handful of places where news organizations have quoted a single memo he wrote,[14] but there's not the significant independent coverage that confers notability. THF (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic; WP:IINFO; more properly done by directing reader to official coverage webpage Cybercobra (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial works. No charted single in any national chart. No gold certifications. No non-trivial coverage of international or national concert tours. Has not released two or more albums on a major label or important indie label. Members have not moved on to notable bands. Is not the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. No nomination for Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis. "Dew Circuit Breakout" doesn't qualify as a "major music competition". "Bustin Down the Door" is not a notable work of media. No national rotation. "Get to know Them Terribles" is 41 seconds long on the MTV website, not "half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" —Kww(talk) 19:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does fail WP:BAND. Only significant coverage is in local papers, the MTV brief mention is really part of something else, and the "brief stint" on the VANS Warped Tour means little, local bands are often invited to play a day or two. I can't find them on any of the past years' Warped Tour articles here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Crystal Lake Community Consolidated School District 47. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable intermediate school, lacks significant 3rd party references Rtphokie (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merger suggestion tag has been removed without discussion almost as soon as it was inserted. This belongs as a picture with caption in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, not as an article on its own. Merge, and, if they don't want it there, delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW redirect not likely. MBisanz talk 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:MUSIC. Song is an album track that has never been released as a single, has never placed on any international music charts, and has never been nominated for any significant music awards. Enigmamsg 02:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete and redirect to Thing-Thing. Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 declined because of a user's thought that online games do not count as "web content" ViperSnake151 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was write about the building and not the museum. We'll keep this as a redirect to the new article about the building. £5 for Mr DiverScout. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None notable, article was started by the owner so is advertising . I don't like listing for Afd but I think this is beyond saving. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've proposed deleting an article, so bear with me.
I've never heard of this game (outside of Wikipedia) even though I purchase the occasional Conn. ticket. Seems like someone from the lottery was pushing this game that may never be played! No Annuities (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt this game will ever get off the ground. Only one other game of this nature exists, at least in the US (Pennsylvania). I'm not hearing of any other games of this kind. This article probably should go. No Annuities (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE-the article can always be brought back if the game ever gets off the ground. For now, I don't see it happening. Loveyourcar (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Akradecki as a copyvio (WP:CSD#G12). Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would be spam if it told us where to buy the product. As it is, no evidence that the product exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
notability seems questionable and content either trivial or negative. Deleted twice before in 2006 and undeleted [31] in 2007. Rd232 talk 00:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to The Ten Commandments for a Designer of Finnish Heraldry. MBisanz talk 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTMANUAL, content that lists instructions, tutorials or how-tos does not make a suitable Wikipedia article. This article's topic also constitutes non-notable fork content and may further constitute original research. Issues of wikification and WP:NOTMANUAL were brought up about a year ago or longer, and no significant improvement has been made, nor does such improve appear to be possible. The article's topic is necessarily non-notable fork content and unencyclopedic. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school. No references at all, and nothing to say about it other than it exists. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the smallest and least interesting of any geographic feature even in the tiny town of Darien, Connecticut where it's located. A Google Maps search for "Hay Island, Darien, CT" [32] will show it's a spit of land that extends 1,000 to 2,000 feet off of a larger peninsula. There are tiny peninsulas all over the place on the Connecticut shore, and like almost all of them, there is next to nothing that can be reliably sourced about this one. Oh, we do know that a rich guy, William Ziegler (a fine person by all accounts) lived there before his recent death, and he named a holding corporation after Hay Island. It's very expensive land -- I'll give it that -- but that's not unusual. Violates WP:N, WP:RS and it's been a magnet for vandalism in the past (check the history). I'm an inclusionist, but there's no hope for a good article on this one. Noroton (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Her only album did not chart, nor did any singles. She is not the subject of significant reliable third party sources. Seems to only be famous for being Dolly Parton's sister. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 00:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails relevant notability guidelines RenegadeMonster (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Kerala ethnic groups. MBisanz talk 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism and vague classification. The title also appears inappropriate and ethnically divisive and POV. If the article survives deletion it needs to be merged with Demographics of Kerala. We could also create separate articles for Tamils in Kerala, Kannadigas in Kerala, etc. However, the vague term "Non-Malayali Keralites" should be removed. The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 12:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep, and possibly rename This seems to be a good signposting document that pulls togther a range of info in a number of other articles. It's sourced, and the numbers of people included in the broad subject field certainly makes it notable to my mind. Not having the other articles is no reason to delete this one. If there are sources that would support the other articles, I don't see why they couldn't be created. If neologism is an issue, and I don't know if 'Keralites' is one or not, then rename as per Salih. --GedUK 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a copy and paste of a large table of data found here http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/downloads/may2008.asp , nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure which rule this breaks exactly, but I'm sure we can't fill Wikipedia with articles about public domain data tables, what would be the end of it? Habanero-tan (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]