The result was keep. There are a number of solutions here, and I have my own suggestion. However, the consensus is that the current solution works fine, so we might as well go with that consensus and keep the current solution as impose any other. SilkTork *YES! 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unnecessary and virtually useless disambiguous page. Every Texas Chainsaw Massacre article has a template (Template:The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) that links every single Chainsaw related page. We also have The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (franchise), which is linked in the first sentence of each of the film pages. Having a disambiguous page that does nothing but link film pages that are already linked like that twice is unnecessary. This page should be deleted so that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (film) can take over this title, with a "This is for the 2003 film, for the 1973 film see.." added to the top. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Blueboy96 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP: ENT in that she has only had one semi-major role, not the 2+ required. No evidence of "cult following" or "innovative contributions" ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A new article may now be created on the other band using the same name. SilkTork *YES! 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was de-proded, although apparently in error. As I noted in my ((prod2)) there is a notable band by this name, however they are not the same band as described in the article. (See Allmusic article.) The band actually described has zero claim to notability that I could find. The article should be deleted and replace by an article about the otehr band if desired. ThaddeusB (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- User:Docu 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a non-notable list of shopping malls and is true not just for Bahrain but for any country. WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTDIR. Mohummy (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How is this different from recently deleted articles such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_hotels_in_Bahrain Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of clubs in Bahrain and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List of supermarket chains in Bahrain? The articles for the two malls which have articles read as advertisements rather than anything notable or encyclopedic. This is not a travel wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohummy (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G6) by R'n'B. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 12:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Pretty much all I could find was sites that posted the track list, artwork, download link, and maybe a sentence or three. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete by User:Harej. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by Harej. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by Harej. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replica 37th United States Congress gordonrox24 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt to submit a professional response to the above would be to say that it is unfortunate to have to create alternate article, but each "main" article has become infected variously with minimal understanding of the content and its organization. A close inspection will confirm that the various editors over the last year have in fact created the mess and the effort underway is an attempt to create a set of consistent and accurate articles. stilltim (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by Harej. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30th United States Congress already exists. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus Cheers. I'mperator 14:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness Records' "World's Tallest Motorcycle" category no longer exists, having been replaced by "Worlds Tallest Rideable Motorcycle."[3] A different monster bike, smaller taller than "Bigtoe" but presumably rideable, holds the current title. The winner seems to have changed at least once or twice since the Bigtoe page was created, and during that time there was little interest in it on Wikipedia. There is a self-promoting aspect to both the Guinness Records, and the record holders, which suggests that they should provide their own publicity rather than seek it on Wikipedia, unless there exists verifiable evidence of significant public interest outside of Guinness' own publicity, or the publicity created by the record holders. Dbratland (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Interesting topic, though needs reliable sources before it is recreated. SilkTork *YES! 19:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V. Only cited website makes no mention of team Stu.W UK (talk) 22:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 13:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed ad nauseam at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#Source code, Wikipedia is not a code repository: it is appropriate to describe an algorithm within its own article both in English prose and as either (preferably) pseudocode or a single code implementation. Multiple redundant implementations belong somewhere else more suited to hosting code. We've recently gone through several iterations of ripping all this code out of the breadth-first search article, leaving something shorter that a human can read; this attempt to add it back in by a back-door channel is not constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Interesting topic if true. But needs reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 13:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to stem from this discussion on a forum. This article fails WP:N. Further, the team is not a national one. As Shanghai actually ceased to be a Japanese puppet state in 1940 one of the matches mentioned is definitely incorrect. I find it highly unlikely that the 1937 one occurred once Shanghai became 'independent'. Regardless, Hong Kong didn't play an official international until 1954. This means this article boils down to a possible but unlikely single match between two unrecognised teams. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically an essay that, to quote a CSD criterium, "would require a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic". Delete per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Yintaɳ 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Keep votes ;) In any regard, while I may be unemployed right now, I don't have the ability to go to Wiki U., the MOS pages alone would take days to read, so can one of you either give me a few things to improve? thx Chris R —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRoetzer (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC) And I just picked up on the signature stamp button on the tool bar! --CRoetzer (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Drawn Some for some cleaning up, I too went back and streamlined it more based upon feedback. I'm not as qualified as the wiki experts so without removing content, feel free to help! --CRoetzer (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball delete by DerHexer. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) deleted per WP:SNOW, WP:CSD#A7 —DerHexer (Talk) 17:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy deletion. A Google news archives search gives exactly one relevant hit (another hit is from 2001, another hit is French), and given that, I think the article creator is overstating the buzz. None of the refs are from reliable sources. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk 08:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: Why delete an article on a valid subject that is relevant and significant!
DONT DELETE! Is urbandictionary not reliable? Is wikia.com not reliable? Ajfweb (talk) 17:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC) There are hundreds of thousands of youtube poop videos... I just would like it to be considered as not a "useless, meaningless thing that Youtube people do" and instead as a "valid, popular form of video remix". please, give it a chance! Ajfweb (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) HEY HEY HEY! Hang on a second!!!! Youtube Poop on many valid encyclopedias and dictionaries on the web (not all of these are that reliable, choose for yourself though):[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A senior lecturer at Auckland University of Technology who, of course, does research, but does not seem to pass the Professor Test. --Dynaflow babble 21:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with Ceasefire, Article is completely redundant to the already existing Episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is intended to include "the oldest and most influential" African-American neighborhoods, but it has become an unsourced dumping ground for any and every African-American neighborhood an editor can think of. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a problem with random material being added, why not ask for the page to be semi-protected? Deletion should generally be a last resort.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 13:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating Easter Island national football team as both articles rely on each other. Neither team's existence can be verified. Even if they were, their notability is highly questionable Stu.W UK (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is redundant to already existing episode list. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Let it again be noted that I have no involvement with this article beyond properly formatting the AFD for another user. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason: Redundant, Ill-Conceived Wiki Article This topic is properly covered in Barack_Obama (section Political Positions) or the Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign,_2008 (section Political Positions). The political positions of the Barak Obama campaign will not change because the campaign is over. As Obama is now an elected executive, on-going he will not have modified political "positions", he will have policies which will or will not conform to his his campaign positions. So a major article on Barak Obama's "new" political positions is trivial and silly. After the election of Barak Obama, maintaining this article as though the President can have new "positions" that are separate from the bills he signs, the policies his administration declares would require mind-reading. It is the equivalent to General Electric's P.R. division maintaining separate wiki article on the "Environmental Positions of the General Electric Board of Directors" rather than one on the actual environmental-related initiatives G.E. takes. Worse it is like some guy reading news articles to attempt to discover the environmental positions of the G.E. board.
After a president is elected, "positions" (such as, for example "The Bush Doctrine are derived by opinion writers and political critics. Some of these positions might one day deserve a Wikipedia article. Most will not. But wikipedia editors are not capable of deriving the President's personal "positions" in opposition to the policies he acts on.
So the content of this article is properly applicable to a sub-section of the 1) Barack_Obama article or the 2) O.B. Presidential Campaign 2008. Number 2 is the best choice because it better limits the scope of the intended content.--Manawyddan (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, plus a motion to declare today "No Consensus Day" since that apparently is the new black today. ;) One two three... 15:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is reduundant to episode list except for the Trivia section, which per AVTRIV should be removed anyways; if that's done, we've hit redundancy. part of my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.ThuranX (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Happy No Consensus Day! One two three... 15:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists of an extended plot summary, and thin trivia section. It makes no assertions of notability. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years.Continuing my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. ThuranX (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable one-shot by a nonnotable artist. Google searches on the English and kanji titles and on the author's name don't turn up anything, and neither the series nor the author have entries on Anime News Network. 「ダイノガイ千?!」(Dinoguy1000) 20:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 15:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists of a nearly shot-for-shot plot summary, a trivia section and makes no assertions of notability of any sort. As with all others nominated, prodded for two years. Continuing my efforts to review a few MASH episodes per day. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rlendog (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Avgas. Article is already merged so let's close it that way (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not list any reason why the subject is notable. Searching google news archives for "swiftfuel" with the quotes gives nothing that passes wp:N (I can't get a well formed link here, so: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q="SwiftFuel"&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en ) Previous AFDs ended in no consensus and promises of future development, but these sound to me like violations of wp:CRYSTAL and have not panned out. Some of the info could be mentioned at various articles, but there's not enough here for anything more than an advertisement. NJGW (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant improvement since the last nomination. Still disputed as to which "generations" are real and which are subgenerations, now no sources are given (and no source has every been given which had Generation Jones on a list), etc. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are many sources which have lists including Generation Jones, and the supposed "issues" with this article are primarily in the mind of the editor making this nomination, who has a personal agenda which is driving this nomination, as opposed to this being a good faith attempt to provide Wikipedia readers with accurate articles. I point this out not in an attempt to attack this editor, but because it seems like relevant context in considering this proposed deletion. Having said that, I'm not sure how I feel about deleting this article, I could probably go either way; it has flaws, but also provides a useful role. Maybe we should try listing the generations without the birth years.TreadingWater (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 13:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined to speedy delete this as an A7, since it at least carries a slight assertion of notability, but he probably doesn't meet WP:Notability. Only links are to his website and IMDB. Aervanath (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Resignations from the Guantanamo military commission. The other lawyers to be merged as well. SilkTork *YES! 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:BLP1E case. Non-notable lawyer that has only been the subject of news articles for a single event, mostly unrelated to him. BJTalk 19:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Article may be recreated with reliable source showing Nicholl played for the Leinster Senior Cup in 2000 SilkTork *YES! 15:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Reason for PROD was "Article fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE because it is about a footballer who never played in a fully-pro league" - Reason for PROD removal was "player competed for the Leinster Senior Cup in 2000". I agree with the person who added the PROD that this player fails WP:ATHLETE. I am therefor suggesting this article be deleted. John Sloan @ 19:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journalist Passportguy (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. "Word of mouth advertisement" is not a reliable source. SilkTork *YES! 15:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to run across this article, and the thing is, I can find no evidence that this art project ever came to fruition. Moreover, it doesn't seem notable enough for an article about an event that was planned but never actually took place. For a rationale, I guess I'll say that the project, at least as a fait accompli, is unverifiable in reliable sources. Deor (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 16:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of games that fall under the genre "Space Racing". Since "Space Racing" does not have its own article, and WP:LISTCRUFT discourages list pages about subjects that do not have their own articles, I propose this article be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Our biographies of living persons policies have much more importance over the fact that the event of this woman's arrest is a news story in the UK. The content of the article can be retrieved and merged upon request.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E. Many people get arrested every day. A simple arrest for alleged drug trafficking does not make someone notable even if there is extensive news coverage. Harry the Dog WOOF 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I am willing to WP:Userfy on request. SilkTork *YES! 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wholly lacking in reliable sources, so fails the need for multiple, independent, nontrivial sources demonstrating enough notability for a separate article. Discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gruesome_Harvest has failed to turn up anything that meets our criteria for inclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"a. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature."
So I did two things, I looked to see what libraries hold the book and if it is still in print. I checked WorldCat and it is held by dozens of libraries in my region alone, including major university and research libraries. On Amazon it ranks 5,500 or so in book sales which is pretty darn high meaning it is not only in reprint but also currently popular 60 years after first publication. Certainly common sense would indicate the book is notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Advertising Aervanath (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Serious notability concerns: independant label, no notable acts, no reliable secondary sources (that i could find), only external links to social networking sites. Created by Single-purpose account seemingly for promotion. Fails WP:COMPANY. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 17:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bootlegs are usually deleted [27]. Name can be reused as a redirect to Metal Acoustic Music if wanted. SilkTork *YES! 18:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unofficial bootleg album, not released by the band or their labels. No sources to establish notability and a seriously doubt any could be provided. Rehevkor ✉ 17:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Even if there's such a thing as a non-notable Metallica album, wouldn't this deserve a mention in Metallica discography?
2) Metal bands in general do tend to write acoustic tracks sometimes. Would it be possible to write an encyclopaedic article with this title?
I'm thinking we might need to merge a trimmed version of this to Metallica discography and then disambiguate this between Metal Acoustic Music and a redirect to Metallica discography for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER so that means we keep the article but it needs to be cleared of copyright violating text (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable actor. Some Google news hits as cast in stage productions, but no non-trivial coverage. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not being updated, info should already be on individual team season pages Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. We have consensus that this is an unneeded content fork of Tea Party protests, so also redirect there. There is some disagreement about whether deletion or merging is appropriate, so I'll restore and userfy the content on request if somebody does want to merge anything from this fork. Sandstein 06:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a clear fork from the main Tea Party protests article and from the sub-article New American Tea Party which is currently in an AFD discussion. I think it was inappropriate to create another fork while discussion on deleting the original fork is ongoing, and leaning heavily towards delete. [32] TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I chime in too? I think the nationwide chicago tea party page looks good. After reading others comments im not sure what the fuss is all about to delete it. Does everyone here know this is different than the april 15 tea party's right? That's two events not oneevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.153.81 (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On April 9, 2009, the blog Think Progress claimed that most of the 2009 protests were conservative lobbyist-created "astroturf" projects and not spontaneous grassroots protests. Instead, Think Progress contended, the protests were nationally coordinated and organized by Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks[1].
- Present on the March 2 call were the majority of the coordinators of the Feb. 27th events, most of whom had been calling in daily the prior week. Some on the line had independently organized their own Feb. 27th event and subsequently learned of the online group. All of the people on that call had worked themselves very hard to obtain what can only be described as a near-miracle. In less than six days, a handful of people on the national level (fewer than ten) and forty - sixty people on the ground were able to organize and manage events that resulted in 15,000 - 25,000 people across the country coming together to let their voices be heard. In Lansing, Michigan, co-organizer Joan Fabiano decided on Monday, Feb. 23 to organize an event at her State Capitol for that Friday. In less than four days, she and two other women from the area managed to gather together 300 - 400 of their fellow Michigan citizens. In St. Louis, Bill Hennessey, with the help of radio show host Dana Loesch, found themselves on that Friday standing under the Arch with 1,500 other Missourians.
- "People came out and the idea of protesting the stimulus caught on around the country. But it wasn’t until Rick Santelli gave his spontaneous “rant” on television, calling for a new tea party, that the idea of holding Tea Parties came into focus. Brendan spoke to some of his key people in various states and found that all of them were eager to make Santelli’s idea a reality. It was that spontaneous."
- Rename to something. This could easily be construed as to refer to the events leading up to the Revolutionary War (the one in the 18th century, not some proposed war against Obama). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although Ultimate Football (and Ultimate Football League) get a number of ghits, I can't find any showing notability of this version in the first half-dozen pages of ghits or gnews hits. Notability may indeed exist, but the noise is overwhelming any signal in the article.
Note that previous versions of the article described a more generic version of the game (with a different starting place and year), but I can't find any version with references.
Taking this to AfD instead of prod because the number of different editors who have contributed lead me to think this won't be uncontroversial. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable location. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:R'n'B, the author requested deletion (G7). Jamie☆S93 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly either a hoax or completely non-notable. A Google search returns no relevant results, and a PROD-tag was removed by the article creator, naturally. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencylopedic and failing notability guidelines. I don't dispute that "Two Cows" is a well-known, widely used rhetorical device. Nevertheless the article doesn't add any non-obvious information on its subject beyond reproducing the "Two Cows" joke. Encyclopedic articles are about their subject matter; that is, they more than merely exemplify their subject matter. If a reader who encountered the "Two Cows" joke elsewhere came here to find more information on it, would he leave any more knowledgeable? No. Accordingly, the article as it is now is unencyclopedic. To the extent I doubt any verifiable information could be found to make it encyclopedic, the article should be deleted. Furthermore the notability of this subject has been asserted but has not been shown by reliable sources. The only relevant sources are telling of the joke, and new twists on the joke, not a discussion of the joke and the meanings behind it. Please see section on article talk page about the ProQuest sourcing. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 15:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not, basically, an encyclopaedia article, and it could never be one because there's not enough to write about. But it is part of an encyclopaedic theme (which is Joke Cycles, e.g. "You have two cows" or "In Soviet Russia, Wikipedia edits you!"). We already have content about that theme, so merge this there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the useful, encyclopaedic sources won't be talking about "You have two cows" specifically. They might be talking about the phenomenon of joke cycles, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Basit is just an Arabic name, like John is an English name. RobbertSH (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced one liner about a name without any indication that it is notable in any way. WP is not your baby naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus AfDs appear to have pushed themselves to the limit on May 12th. One two three... 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unremarkable movie. Contested prod. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being mentioned once in a film magazine and being shown on a projector in someone's garden is only permissable if Wikipedia has entriels about all the non-notable peers of Dickens and Hardy the duo The Iron Rod (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- References --
The result was delete. Closed a bit early due to WP:SNOW. Jamie☆S93 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Fails WP:BIO and the basic criteria. Google returns nothing, as does Google news. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Consensus is that Michael Q. Schmidt's improvements are enough to establish notability. Thanks Michael! Eluchil404 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased movie. Not surprisingly, not yet notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Dank, under the G4 criterion (recreated article). Jamie☆S93 21:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism / Wikipedia is not a dictionary Passportguy (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable sound designer. All sources appear to be self-sourced. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Declined speedy deletion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sound designer has been lauded by Oscar winning sound designers and has produced more sound effects for the industry than any other sound designer. His book The Sound Effects Bible is an industry first, receiving praise from Skywalker Sound, Midway Games, Alan Howarth, Randy Thom, and Frank Serafine. He courted by companies like Sony, Apple, and Adobe to create their exclusive sound material for all of their software. To claim that he is unremarkable reflects ones lack of knowledge of the sound effects industry as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.253.12 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Close and turn over to WP:RFD. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was redirecting to the article on Southern Europe but the latter nowhere mentioned the term "Garlic Belt".
The result was no consensus. However, the content is a serious issue and needs to be cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements, plus many smaller problems. Drew Smith What I've done 14:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- User:Andries
Comments: I strongly support deletion of this article as it lacks notability and reliability. . Here's the reason why?
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 02:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reference to player in official senior national team records and no international fixtures played by the national team in 45/46, possible hoax. Prod removed by IP with no reason given. Camw (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is of virtually no interest; hardly any info there. This is mainly because he is not really notable. Although he has played for a couple of teams, there were not many appearances, and some of these were for reserves, etc. He no longer plays in a professional league, and this is not because he is too old, etc. (aged 23), he is just not at ALL a notable footballer. Willplatts (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 02:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product by minor company Passportguy (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 02:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, unverifiable (suspected hoax). PROD was removed. —Snigbrook 13:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/09/nyregion/where-children-are-supposed-to-be-heard-not-simply-seen.html. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 declined on the grounds that it is a museum. While normally I would agree, this one is more like an activity center for preschoolers with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Relatives of famous people are not considered notable. Drew Smith What I've done 11:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the person may not be inherently notable, neither are they barred from having an article written about them. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the tip of the iceberg and these are published books not web references!!!!. He clearly meets the WP:Note criteria.
P.S. I appreciate the nominator's courtesy in notifying me of the AFD debtate even though nominator knew I would probably disagree. There are few people on Wikipedia who would show that level of courtesy.Americasroof (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all articles to the tune of Xth United States Congress - summary and Xth United States Congress - state delegation, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —harej 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.
As an example, lets look at 46th United States Congress - state delegations, 46th United States Congress - summary and 46th United States Congress. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the creator considers them viable; he as good as admitted that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.
Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in here, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked through Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was 50th United States Congress - summary. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at 50th United States Congress. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.
He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.
Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to User:Ironholds, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation, here, has a whiff of wp:own about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that Stilltim is not discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -Rrius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New discussion here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:N. The only reference provided is an unsourced website. Google searches of various combinations of soccer/football and Panama Canal/ Panama canal zone/ Canal zone find no additional information. Even if they did, it's highly unlikely this was anything approaching a real 'national' football team, more likely to have been composed of US soldiers than 'Zonians' Stu.W UK (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating Daniel Muwathe, the team's alleged coach, although no proof is given.
Previous AfD in 2007 resulted in no consensus.
This team has played once ever, against a team of occupying soldiers. They are not notable. Membership of the NF-Board alone is not evidence of notability, as demonstrated by the number of deleted teams in the template at the bottom of the article Stu.W UK (talk) 10:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling this hoax. Nothing to support this. As for the text... well, read it yourself, because I can't quite put it into words. Last I was aware, there wasn't a speedy for hoax material, so *shrug* Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is ((db-hoax)) for hoaxes. Believe it or not, this does actually exist - [43], and it's reasonably well-known among wrestling fans as part of the long-standing feud between Savage and Hulk Hogan. But as far as the bologna that's on the linked page, definite delete (reasonable content already exists at Randy Savage, so a merge (if there were any reasonable content to merge) is unnecessary), particularly as Hogan's own much better known album Hulk Rules is a redirect. Nosleep break my slumber 09:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as silly hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced account of "political movement" with no news coverage and zero Google hits, including Google books. Possible hoax: supposed leader "Ragnar Danneskjold" is also a character in Atlas Shrugged. Hairhorn (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to NLT (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thorne appears to be a bit part actor and a member of a boy band. Neither make someone notable. His acting credits appear to be limited to playing the likes of "DDR Kid", "Dancer", and "Playground Kid", none significant parts. He is a member of NLT (band) currently at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLT (band) but appears to have done nothing notable outside that band. There appears to be no independent reiliable sources that show any individual notabilty for Thorne. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expired PROD (reason: No reliable sources demonstrating that this person meets the inclusion criteriae, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER) removed before deletion with the mention "Adding Filmography". Unfortunately, it doesn't address the sourcing issue mentioned in the PROD. Google News turns up exactly one source, which might qualify, but the GNG requires several. Google Search only returns trivial or placeholder pages. MLauba (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, one event and a contested event at that. Should be merged into article about Antarctica exploration. No reason for this to have a tiny stub of its own. Age Happens (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and/or poorly sourced. Just because a person is first or youngest or oldest does not justify a Wikipedia article by itself. Merge this all all other "First" articles with the appropriate complete article on Mount Everest. And 1 clearly biased online source is not suitable for reliability standards. Age Happens (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural AfD. Listed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 10. My own view will be Keep, which I will detail below. SilkTork *YES! 07:15, 12 May 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)) . |
Partridge does not document Belanger at all, only the House Kheperu. The only mention of Belanger at all is as the author in a citation, given in a footnote, for a quotation. Nothing is said about her at all. Partridge does not even support the content in this article against which he is cited as a source. He nowhere says that Belanger founded Kheperu.
Cuhulain has exactly three sentences on the subject of Belanger. The first mentions her as the author of a recommended book. The second and third state that in that book she included an updated version of the Black Veil. Cuhulain is actually discussing the Black Veil itself in that text.
Hesse only mentions Belanger to give context for quoting her on the subject of psychic vampires (not Belanger), and says nothing that is actually about her except for the three words ("prominent psychic vampire") that you've quoted.
Goodman similarly only mentions Belanger in order to quote her on the subject of psychic vampires (again, not Belanger), and again says nothing except that she authored a book and is an "active vampire scene figurehead".
Belanger is an author who has written on other subjects, and whose writings and views on those subjects are quoted by others. But the above are not themselves evidence that other people have actually written about Belanger herself. Uncle G (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The provided sources and help in rebuilding the new article were made by accounts that clearly point to an SPA behaviour, including an user that has been blocked in the past for disruptive editing precisely because of adding promotional material from Belanger in several articles across Wikipedia and reverting other editor's actions in the removal of such content. [67] This SPA indicator alone undermines the whole efforts to reopen an article already far too entwined in drama.
This author has several books published, from which the vast majority are self-published, and the rest are released by publishing houses that do not really comply with the RS policy for reliable sources. I am sorry to most Wiccans and New Agers alike, but Llewellyn and Weiser are not exactly what falls under the RS category. (Also, as a side note, please keep in mind that there are Wicca books published by University presses, as well as professional publishing houses that do comply with RS. So don't take my example on Wicca as pejorative of the cultus.) On the top of that, none of her works was ever target of peer reviews or even documented under professional scrutiny and debate, except the online opinions found in several websites and people that bought her book. There may be a few references to her name in some more reliable articles, but still they do not present true reviews on her published work. This is a clear indicator on the lack of notability, from someone who does not meet most of the WP:BIO guidelines. Bottom line is that this individual, wether as an author or as a singer, is not worthy of an article in an encyclopedia.
For such a borderline-notable article that has been used as a platform for promotional content and a series of disruptive edits in other articles related with this same individual, I believe the benefits of maintaining such an entry in the system are clearly diminished by the red flags it raises, not to mention that it would conflict directly with the COI policy that Wikipedia editors so strive to enforce.
Everyone, please forgive my extensive entry on this particular DRV, but this is the sort of trend that an online encyclopedia must try to avoid. DianaLeCrois : 23:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a random combination with no resident embassies. All google news search comes up with is relations on the football field [74]. I couldn't find anything meaningful on the Irish Foreign Affairs website (especially since they don't have a resident embassy). All I could find is what the Irishaid website says which is very little and it seems like Ireland deals with relations in an Ireland-Balkans context. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more of the many memorial biographies for victims of crime. Neither the person nor the crime are not even barely notable. The article pushes the POV that it was a hate crime. Also, I had to remove passages accusing some people of murder that has gone without sources at least since February 2007. We need to get ride of these memorials. Not every crime is a hate crime, not every crime is notable, not every crime-victim is notable... Damiens.rf 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. ^ "Obituaries Fred C. Martinez Jr.". Cortez Journal. July - August 2001.
An obituary merely tells that someone died. It does not comment on the notability of the death of the individual. This particular obituary does not even give the details of the subject's death.
2. ^ "Navajo Teen Death May Be Hate Crime". The Associated Press. July 12, 2001.
A reliable source. WP:GNG requires significant mention in multiple, though.
3. ^ Death in Cortez, CO, Hate Crime Killings
This is a letter written by someone who has a clear agenda in the situation. Not even a source, let alone a reliable one.
4. ^ Jon Barrett (09-OCT-01). "Getting along in Cortez: in the aftermath of the matter of transgendered Navajo Fred Martinez Jr., a Colorado town faces its dark side, and Martinez's mother faces life without her bestfriend". The Advocate.
I don't know if The Advocate is considered a reliable source, but I don't think it should be. It can't be considered neutral in a lot of what it writes.
5. ^ JEREMY QUITTNER (August 28, 2001). "Death of a Two Spirit". The Advocate.
The Advocate, again.
6. ^ http://www.coavp.org/content/view/34/44/
Trivial mention. The article is not about Martinez.
7. ^ http://www.tampabaycoalition.com/files/604ShaunMurphyGets40Years.htm
This is a reprint of a number of articles from local (to the area of the crime) newspapers. I don't think local newspapers can lend notability to a subject.
8. ^ "Case closed in Colorado.". The Advocate. 09-JUL-02.
The Advocate, again.
9. ^ http://www.coavp.org/content/view/34/44/
Exact duplicate of source 6. Trivial mention.
10. ^ SARA CORBETT (October 14, 2001). "Does a Sex Change Mean the End of the Relationship?".
Trivial mention, which is pretty clear by the title of the article.
11. ^ http://nhts.net/media/Addressing%20Two-Spirits%20-%20Participant's%20Manual%20(25).pdf
This appears to be a workbook of some sort. Mention of Martinez, but only in questions to be filled out which follow. This is only used to source the statement it is used as study materials, but that doesn't make the subject notable.
12. ^ David Campos (2002). Sex, youth, and sex education. ABC-CLIO. p. 142. ISBN 9781576077764.
One-paragraph mention in a 300-page book.
13. ^ Robert B. Coates, Ph.D (March 2006). "Responding to Hate Crimes through Restorative Justice Dialogue". Contemporary Justice Review: 7 - 21.
The link does not mention Martinez; it's a link to a general page for the "Contemporary Justice Review." Likely a trivial mention, though of course I can't say for certain.
14. ^ http://www.gpac.org/archive/news/notitle.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0387
This is an interview with Martinez's mother by the "Gender Public Advocacy Coalition." Not likely a neutral outlet.
15. ^ http://www.gpac.org/youth/news.html?cmd=view&archive=news&msgnum=0353
Same group as above, and a trivial mention at that.
16. ^ http://polis.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=124494
Trivial mention of the case in a larger article about a hate crimes bill.
17. ^ http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8111909
Looks to be a transcript of a speech by Ted Kennedy on the floor of the United States Senate, for much the same purposes as source 16. Martinez is one of numerous cases Kennedy mentions.
18. ^ http://glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/booklink/record/1697.html
Links to a tribute film, almost certainly non-notable.
19. ^ http://www.breckfilmfest.com/home/movie.php?film_ID=835
Another link to the same film.
20. ^ http://www.twospirits.org/
Another film about Martinez, but again, not notable.
21. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1296906/
Fun fact: A guy in my Drama 101 class at college had an IMDb page, and he was a 19-year-old pothead at the time. (OK, serious wording: IMDb has long been held to be an unreliable source for anything other than airing and screening dates).
It all adds up to non-notability of the case and the subject. Listen, it's a tragedy that this kid was killed for being who he was. But that doesn't mean he or his case automatically satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nosleep break my slumber 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, many of these sources accurately reference statements made in the article. What none of them do is show the notability of the subject or the crime (as I said above, if the crime were notable, this could be moved to "Murder of Fred Martinez" or something sufficiently NPOV, but it doesn't seem that that is, either). Nosleep break my slumber 23:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 00:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted at Afd. A new version was created, which was then deleted under the speedy deletion criteria as being too similar to the previously deleted version. This was challenged at a deletion review, which determined that the article was sufficiently different enough to warrant a new evaluation at Articles for deletion. I am personally neutral on this deletion. Aervanath (talk) 06:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination, non resident embassies. google news search turns up next to nothing except one minor tourism agreement. [75] otherwise they've competed in football competitions. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 00:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
although North Korea has an embassy in Mexico, there appears no significant coverage of any relations except this one article [76]. other than that coverage seems to be of Hillary Clinton making comments about North Korea whilst in Mexico. [77] LibStar (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Early close, speedy keep by discussion. AGF, folks. Keegantalk 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<<Courtesy admin blanking of nomination statement as negative unsourced BLP attack content. Dlohcierekim 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)>>[reply]
— Aa45955 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Nosleep break my slumber 02:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Book whose author is also an article nominated for deletion. This "article" has not expanded beyond a single sentence in the four years it has existed. More generally, I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:BK. Nosleep break my slumber 03:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good expansion. Hopefully better sourcing is also coming. Nosleep break my slumber 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding the "'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent" required by WP:BIO. Most coverage is only trivial, mentioning fight results etc. Subject is a professional athlete, but not in the sense WP:ATHLETE assumes (he's not fighting at the equivalent level to say pros in the NFL; next to all mixed martial arts competition is professional since most state athletic commision does not have an amateur level). His fights are all in lower-level regional promotions, something acknowledged in the prose when mentioning fights to UFC (a top-level promotion) rejects as particularly notable fights. --aktsu (t / c) 03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 00:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in pretty bad shape, but the subject has won a number of "titles" and such. Not being a wrestling fan, I can't tell if they are important or not so I am bringing this to AfD with the hopes that someone knowledgeable can opine (and hopefully fix the article if worth saving). I remain neutral at this time. ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ohconfucius has nominated the article for speedy deletion under G11. This process may be moot. Nosleep break my slumber 06:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Not speedied. Nosleep break my slumber 06:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Interesting does not mean notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria. Has been speedily deleted for CSD A7 in the past, but has been improved. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take this into consideration and I thank all the Wiki editors for their helpfull comments. 167.75.254.253 (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ALLOW In the notablilty guidelines it says that popularity is not a guarantee of notability, so it follows that lack of poularity (as shown by a poor position in a search engine) is not an indicator of LACK of notability. The Political Simpleton does not show up on the first page of any searches other than those asking for the sitename specifically. Is that the basis for it being judged un-noteworthy by those who feel it should be deleted? If so, that reason does not follow the guidelines. I am left asking if popularity is not a basis for notability, then that leaves the criteria as subjective and stacks the deck for very worthy sites that may not fit another person's idea of worthiness. This leads to abuse, which I know is not the intent here. Wiki is trying its best to have some kind of standard, which is appreciated. If the original content on the site is of dubious quality or consists of rants, then the tag of un-noteworthy may be more valid. If the original content on the site is intelligent and insightful, then those contributions are noteworthy and so is the site by association.Laurabramble (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — Laurabramble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overly indiscriminate characters list, listing every single one-shot in the series. I'm fine with listing the four main boys along with other semi-majors like Butters, but there's just way too much information on this list, most of which is in-universe/fancrufty expansion on List of characters in South Park. The main character list is fine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I changed my mind back to Keep, but only for the time being (and for the reasons I gave on my initial "keep" vote). Merging it right away into List of characters in South Park would throw that article out of whack, seeing as how it's a list-class article consisting entirely of wikitables. I've opened a discussion on the South Park WikiProject discussion page about the possibility of merging this and the other character lists into one article. So, yeah, keep the article so that a merger can be discussed. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There were several strong and weak arguments on both sides, so consensus in this discussion was far less clear than in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Longjohn Flap or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dear Dad...Again. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists of nothing but a shot for shot PLOT, and had been prodded for almost two years. Nowhere is any assertion of notability or any real-world information of any sort. ThuranX (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep unless you plan to delete all the other Mash episode articles. The article is atrocious, but potential exists for it to be improved and there are thousands of articles on TV show episodes. Now, if you think they're all a hopeless case, then that's a different argument. This is not an article of any quality right now, but neither are any of the other articles in the same series. Nosleep break my slumber 03:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Delete per emerging consensus and subsequent discussion, but I still consider this procedure fundamentally flawed. Nosleep break my slumber 05:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Withdrawing... my bad. See... this is why it's good to list on AfD. :P slakr\ talk / 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability requirements for inclusion; Pulitzer prize nomination claims appears to be falsified. Publications are internal to his university, as is the alleged documentary; appears to have no significant field contributions per WP:BIO.
Also, self-promotional article (borderline G11) created using several socks, which also edited other pages on the subject to create backlinks to the biography. --slakr\ talk / 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Comment Found mention of the subject on a site independent to it here. Most the first results to a web search give Cytowic's own site or links to his book The Man Who Tasted Shapes, which does not appear notable per WP:BK. Nosleep break my slumber 03:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - copyright violation - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Analysis. Largely duplicates Alternative investment. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 03:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable band. The article's creator flicked away an A7 tag, so I decided to bring it here for a full discussion of its merits. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't any reliable sources that show notability per WP:MUSIC. Also, this article has a lot of original research. Iowateen (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Article topics need to be notable. This article is not notable and contains little to no information. RocketPride (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — RocketPride (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep per improvements and WP:DEADLINE. AfD is not cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded almost two years ago; no independent assertions of notability. ThuranX (talk) 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record company who do not establish stand alone notability with significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per the notability guidelines for companies and organizations. While the bands themselves maybe notable, I feel this doesn't automatically transfer to their label. Article was tagged, sources searched for, but noting of substance was found, so I'm putting it out to the community. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 01:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD G11). It seems evident that this is thinly-veiled spam. --Kinu t/c 04:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article might be a little too raw -- it reads like a half-baked essay, with no references to back up its argument. It certainly is not encyclopedic. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this article fails to in notability. Most of it is unsourced although where it is source Myspace and other fan pages have been used. There has been no official references to single releases and there is much controvery/speculation surrounding the band's future. Much of the article's style is also incorrect for wikipedia. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The result was userfy to User:Imnotafan/Sean Needham. The article may be moved back once notability is established with reliable sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor, if actor at all. No trace of him on google under the name "Sean William Needham" Passportguy (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also his managements webite provides proof of his credits and more. http://www.cdm-ltd.com/client-cv.php?client=25 This is the link to his spotlight page where you can see clips of television appearances http://www.spotlight.com/interactive/cv/9095-7833-7542 The Wicked website is proof of his involvement with the Musical http://www.wickedthemusical.co.uk/readnews.asp?id=29wkd (Croxteth)
http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/buddy-rev.htm http://www.officiallondontheatre.co.uk/london_shows/show/item75343/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnotafan (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has had notability template since August 2008 but notability not established. Pontificalibus (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Football player who was never officially on a roster. He was on the Patriots' practice squad for a bit but that was it, and that doesn't pass notability. Wizardman 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencylopedic, contains original research and reads like a book report full of conjecture. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic list. Better as a category. BOARshevik (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel guides, culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet inclusion criteria, but Wikipedia does not list every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel, venue, etc. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel, however. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Entertainer
Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of 'wishy-washy' quasi- celebrity trash out there but I think there's just enough in terms of WP:RS] to justify an article. HJMitchell You rang? 11:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source that is is actually a single. Has not charted on any notable charts. Fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability. Holiday56 (talk) 04:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject, article title not even official name of thoroughfare User234 (talk) 10:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 02:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability or coverage neon white talk 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable band who have only released one single, one EP, one mini-album and one self-released album. Although there are large number of sources used in the article, none of them appear to cover the band in any depth and are mainly blogs or non-independent sources. A google search has failed to turn up detailed coverage of the band in any reliable sources. Doesn't meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BAND. JD554 (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A very weak delete because with a few more references, this article should be fine. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 06:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 19 May 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)) . |
Minor local real-estate developer, with local--at best--notability. It has the distinct sense of self-promotion. CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there appears to be press in New York, Mexico, Vancouver, Chilliwack, and now there appears to be a US Federal Lawsuit before Judge Mahan in US District Court in Nevada involving fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.19.190.72 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article that just came out last week on April 22nd, 2009 about Mr. Alexander hijacking a Company. Its actual takes 1/4 of the Canadian Newspaper's Business Section written by the notoreous David Baines [101] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elenamoran (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be no significant coverage in reliable sources. See all-dates Google news archive search and Google web search. There are tons of other possible sources, but none is cited here. Most happy to be demonstrated wrong, and will withdraw nom if so. Bongomatic 14:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]