The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 16:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we are the only source online for this battle [1], and the sole creators of this article have basically been going about creating what appear to be a major hoax/POV-push related to Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia (see earlier AfD). Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shoemaker's Holiday, you are wrong. Wikipedia is not the only source for this Battle. Please see all references cited in the article, some of them are available online. Please also bear in mind that, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. Qqtacpn (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Again, I have provided enough bibliography. To just ignore it and say it belongs to the realm of fantasy is arbitrary. Just to mention a recent example, Brian De Toy, Ph.D., arguably the highest living authority in military historian (Professor at West Point Academy), has published on this particular campaign. See, for example, Dr. De Toy, Brian (2009): "Defeating Napoleon’s Designs: Littoral Operations in Galicia, 1809", International Journal of Naval History. You can even read it online at http://ijnhonline.org/volume7_number3_Dec08/article_detoy_dec08.htm#_edn2. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmm. [2] - "Lopez De Prado, Baron of Lemavia Location: Chicago, IL," which just happens to be where the perpetrators of the Barbaro hoax came from. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Shoemaker's Holiday, your arguments are once again baseless. I understand you are not familiar with the geography of Spain. Monforte de Lemos is part of Galicia! What about http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html? This is taken straight from one of the best well known books in Spanish on the Peninsular War. It dedicates an entire epigraph to the Battle of Monforte de Lemos ... Please just acknowledge you have been overzealous, it's fine, I understand (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
Parish record from the 19th are public official documents, preserved in Archives and Libraries, microfilmed and available to the public in general. This is not original research, anyone with good will can go to the sources and read it (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Again please read the sources, which I have provided in the article. If you want to start with a website, read http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html. Can you find "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" there? This is the kind of stuff that a newspaper from Galicia will laugh about, once they know you called this battle a hoax ... (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:
Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The result was superseded by complete overhaul of the article without reference to the original topic. The original article has for all intents and purposes been removed from the article, consistent with the unanimous wishes of the contributors to this discussion. non-admin closure by nominator, Skomorokh 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified article; the existence of the subject has not been confirmed by reliable sources and has been questioned on the talk page. Skomorokh 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm mistaken, this is an exact duplicate of Waterboarding, with a few section cut out. I don't see the point: either cut them out of waterboarding (or drastically shorten them), or keep a single article. Since waterboarding isn't (yet) overly long, and since this seems an unlikely redirect target, we may as well delete. Biruitorul Talk 23:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21st century stuff needs to be moved from waterboarding to this article. there have been some objections, mainly from Badagnani, that have slowed down the process. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. A borderline case, but with at least two distinct media references, I see no evidence that the company is inherently non-notable. However, there does not appear to be consensus in this case. RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The only reference is an article in the Washington Post - that's a good reference, but not sufficient to meet WP:CORP. Previously tagged as being written like an advert, but tag removed with little improvement to the article. gadfium 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (A7). (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "lifestyle". KuroiShiroi (contribs) 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable web service. Article's creator seems to be affiliated with the company, as evidenced by his username and the blog post here. Brianga (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable textbook being spammed, see my talk page. Drawn Some (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Drawn Some (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An amateur cricket team who play in Derbyshire County Cricket League Division Four South, cricket notability guidelines consider clubs in ECB Premier Leagues as notable, this league is four divisions below that level Jpeeling (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as this seems like this is heading for WP:SNOW. Although I still believe it needs better sources to prove notability, others seem to disagree so I'll leave it at that. Tavix | Talk 02:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete This is a trivial/unencyclopedic list of a non-notable intersection. What is so notable about the fact that there are ~35 place names what have doubled words in it? Tavix | Talk 20:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a claim of fame, I can't find sources in a good faith gsearch to back this up. Also a search of the website given as a reference turns up 0 hits, and a gnews search turns up 0 hits for this Anant Kapoor. Because this is 12 years ago, dead tree sources in India may exist showing notability, so bringing to AfD instead of prodding. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This is a non-notable neologism - for example the book from which it originates doesn't have a page & has an Amazon sales rank of 1.7M. Even if it was somehow notable it would still fail WP:DICTDEF. ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't fidn any reliable sources that show notability. Iowateen (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not suitable subject matter for an article- contestants release albums and singles, not the show. For the most part, the show has nothing to do with the release. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic and non-notable article of a real-estate developer. The article seems to be created as an advertisement as a way to showcase their projects. Tavix | Talk 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JJ (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally prodded as made-up, but I see now that this martial art is now merely non-notable (or of limited notability in the Hull area). No Ghits or references to suggest otherwise. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A classic case of a non-notable neologism, I feel. The term isn't even listed in the Urban Dictionary, so the chances of getting a listing here are remote. Of course, that's neglecting the fact that it is probably 100% something made up this afternoon, indicators of which include the rambling nature and the lack of any references, but more importantly the probably self-attribution of the term ("Crame", the surname of the supposed starter of the phrase, also appears in the article creator's username). Need more be said? The only thing that surprises me is the evident literacy of the authors. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to find any independent, relaible sources which could be used to form the basis of a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia article about this six month old website. Third party sources are a requirement of the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for web content, the only sources I can find are the one's given in the article which are just links to the website itself, an advertisement, a Facebook page and a page in Arabic which (from judging from an online translator website) appears to be a similar advertisement. Guest9999 (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original author of this page. This page should not be deleted. the reason and created it was because it is now one of the major Citizen news websites. I use to contribute to CNN's I-Report but now am a regular contributor to iNewsit. I have now added the link to the Alexa Ranking statistics in the references. The site has been ranked around the top 200,000 sites in the world and it has been very useful for me as a student journalist as one of my videos was purchased by a news agency in the middle east thanks to iNewsit. I have also added another third party article mentioning some controversy surrounding iNewsit in the references now. Hope that is ok.
Moghul (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Moghul[reply]
I could not find much else in the mainstream media about iNewsit, TheDailyClarity is another journalist/blogger who contributes to many Citizen News websites(very well known in this community). Why do you say TheDailyClarity is not a reliable source? I found out about iNewsit from ijnet which is a totaly independant organisation for journalists to network. The reference on their(www.ijnet.org) site and the arabic site are totally independent and are not advertisments by iNewsit. These organisations actually research different opportunities and will only publish somthing if its worthwile. Moghul (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)moghul[reply]
I understand where you were coming from, but the problem is trying to find many references for this kind of thing is extremely hard as most media will not talk about their competitors due to the fear of promoting them at the same time. Most of the discussions about iNewsit are on forums etc. Most similar initiatives are owned by large media organisations such as CNN and these organisations will try and avoid mentioning one of their competitors. I wanted to write about a few other smaller and less well known Citizen News websites but I could not find anything about them anywhere at all except on forums. Is it worth me writing about them and referencing forums or will those new articles be deleted if I do this? I Am quite new to wikipedia but love the fact that I can contribute to this amazing knowledgeable. Feel free to add any information to my iNewsit article.
Moghul (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Moghul[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is tagged as a hoax. There is no mention of Joseph Furr in the cited pages of the article's reference Encyclopedia of Urban Legends ([10]; also no mention of a Joseph Furr anywhere else in this book). I have access to Informa's online archives and I viewed the full pdf for the reference "Mechanisms of Acute Human Poisoning by Pesticides"; it also includes no relevant information to substantiate the article. I can find no verifiable references to substantiate the subject's existence. Suggest deletion as unverifiable and a probable hoax. Muchness (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unscheduled air-charter service lacking significant coverage in secondary sources to support WP:COMPANY ttonyb1 (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article says absolutely nothing that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards don't already say. It is almost identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John/Taupin, a redundant article on a similar songwriting pair which was also deleted as being purely redundantly redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to G N' R Lies. The Helpful One 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, never released as a single, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Upcoming, unrecorded album. Lacks verifiable information, and the title is also unconfirmed from what I can see. Amalthea 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Useless dab. These people aren't exactly known as Mary Austin, so no dab is really needed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 19:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this article to AFD as it's been tagged as a hoax. I can find no evidence that this instrument exists outside of WP mirrors (Google search). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or an instrument with insufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines. Muchness (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. One two three... 20:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A court case, but no claims of any reason it is notable. Not all court cases are notable, only those that act as a precedence. There are millions upon millions of court cases, 98% of which do not deserve an article. Wikipedia isn't a collection of court cases, but an encyclopaedia of articles on topics that are notable. Canterbury Tail talk 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It clearly mentions why it is notable at the top of the article. Dream Focus 14:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 20:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Students for Palestine" is hardly a notable organisation that is worthy of an encylcopedic article. A Google search will only come up with their blog, the Wikipedia article and an article on a "Green Left" political activist website that says that the group has more than 20 members. SirThomasMitchell (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by Dsmdgold (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable person. No assertion of notability. Even the author questions the subject's notability. Google only turns up myspace and twitter. It's me...Sallicio! 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Law & Order (franchise). Ill, make a redirect so that the content can be merged. Consider this closure a merge then. Tone 19:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional information, no notability out of universe. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you cut out all the WP:OR, and content that belongs on the sports page of a tabloid newspaper (which club has glory hunter fans this season), all this article's content boils down to one specific application of a very old word which has the general meaning "someone who takes part in an activity in order to share in the glory." Its application to someone taking part in a football fan activity is no more notable than its use elsewhere (eg referring to a military activity[18], angling [19], falsifying claims of heroic behaviour [20], in industry and commerce [21], in charity activities [22]. The list is long - you get the point. All this warrants is a sidenote in the dictionary. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Colloquial use of the term has meant that it has become synonomous with football. The page is an excellent addition to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.215.152 (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belgium has no embassy in Kyrgyzstan. Coverage is mainly about multilateral relations [27], French coverage even less coverage. [28] LibStar (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in reliable third party sources, fails WP:WEB. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the phrase, "There are no references" being included by the article's creator, I assume that there is no way to make this page remotely verifiable. Most of the synopses look like they're either original research or copied from the producer's website. The article's creator removed the PROD tags without explanation, and refuses to stop creating more articles in the same style. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One two three... 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written in an entirely in-universe style and thus fails WP:IN-U. The entire article is written as an historical account and an incautious reader may easily be deceived into believing it is a real organisation. All the sources, save one, are self-references, booksellers or fansites so fails WP:NB in that there are not multiple reliable sources, but admittedly, only marginally failing. The one reliable source does discuss the in-universe organisation in a more than trivial way, but not in enough depth to source the entire article so failing also WP:V. SpinningSpark 11:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In-universe style is not grounds for deletion, although it can be grounds for re-writing the article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article about a single fast food stand. No notability demonstrated beyond local mentions. ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources are here:
1- http://yzone.omy.sg/index.php?articleID=11890&option=com_article&task=detail&type=
Singapore press holding OMY article mentions Singa goody as the 1st local Halal fast food place. Means Singapore's style fast food .
2- http://www.singaporehalaldirectory.com/cocode-80095612-dirid-76-coname-SINGA+GOODY-CompanyProfile_MG.aspx
Halal directory showing Singa goody being a Halal fast food place. Singapore did not have any Halal fast food before Singa goody. So its the first.
3- Maple tree bulletin.
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:3Tygo3100W0J:www.mapletree.com.sg/get_blob.aspx%3Ffile_id%3Dec9_June%252008%2520e-bulletin.pdf+singa+goody&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sg
The above justified my claim of Singa goody being the 1st local halal fast food.
My references are from these reliable sources, from Singapore's newspaper and organisation. Some articles don't even have any references or uses their own homepage as references. Just 3 reference to justify my claim. Thanks a lot. Warmest Regards. Dreams20 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images are taken down from their bulletin and i scan it. Look at the quality of the picture, if it will to be from the shop owner shop will they upload pictures with these quality. Please examine carefully. I have typed other articles and edited a few and posted some pictures. Ok, some references are from forum and i added them to show that I have done my research. Please post me more qns. I seriously find it weird. And one thing to note, some pages of similar organisation do not even have references to start with and my page has 3 reliable ones. I have more, if u need it. Pardon my typing as I am writing new articles now too. warmest regards. Dreams20 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
of course, seek permission before I upload. Dreams20 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with deleting the images but some images that I posted are taken when i dine there. Ok, let be more focus, in the first place, the article was up because it was the 1st of its kind. And hence, several admin accepted it and went on to help me with setting it up and editing.Dreams20 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Adambro for posting me and giving me some light. However, I thought it should be fair for all articles? "Finally, other articles with similar problems existing does not justify this one being kept."? Dreams20 (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see many and they all followed the guidelines as stated like mine. regards. Dreams20 (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i just need to know what errors are there with the article and i adjust it accordingly. I have deleted the pic as requested. FYI, the paragraphs are edited by admin before to make it non-marketing. I have typed several pages and I saw this page getting into deletion just because someone has vanadilised my page and it leads to so many issues going on. Initially, it was deemed as fine. Like I say, the page is under 1st of its kind to be included in wikipedia, that is why i took it up for writing into wiki. Dreams20 (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
like i say, the article is on because it is the 1st of its kind. It met one of the criteria under one section of being the 1st of its kind. Unique. If u are talking about secondary sources, they are many bulletin and print materials. However, if you want to talk about reliable secondary sources, i gladly refer you to almost all other related food cafes eatries. They don't even have reference and their references is their own website. At least the article I did up has more than 3 references. Like i said, some of the reference i put up is to show where i read my info from...some may be reviews from others but some are reviews and writings from respectable organisations. If refer me to a wikipedia article that has met what you mention. I can show you many which i followed and are accepted for many many years already.Dreams20 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i be back again. I am rushing an essay for my school now. Dreams20 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you misinterpret what i was trying to mean. I am trying to draw your attention that food articles cannot give as solid evidence as compared to Historical, factual as well as famous being. My article being a food article should be placed in the sasme catogory as other food articles. It is impossible to expect a food article to be shaped like a factual article. Reliable sources does not mean long sources. Reliable sources should come from respectable organisation or prints and my articles have references from respectable organisation. Like i say, other FOOD article do not even have similar references and as solid as mine. What i am driving at, is not other food articles shuld be deleted but I meant food articles have reliable sources for food articles whereas factual articles have factual reliable sources. Its difference. You cannot compare apples with oranges. Dreams20 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What i am trying to mean a reliable and a notable one is not determined by its length but by its reputation or respectability. Being a food article, means the article will mention about the stall's uniqueness as well as speciality. The references present may be short but it is equally reliable. The topic is short that is why the references are short. I don't understand why length and reliability should be placed side by side and compare like that. I need to know which food article has sources that are notable? I don't see any. Most food article don't even have and I have been browsing and researching. Basically, I hardly find one. Please show me an example.Dreams20 (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely redundant. Only four bands and they're already listed with more detail in the main article Forces of Satan Records. A separate list at this point is unnecessary. Maybe when the record label becomes more notable and expands its lineup to more than just 4 bands it can be split off into a separate list. OlEnglish (Talk) 11:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Helpful One 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay guys, long text:
The article is (in my opinion) a copyright violation. The CopyVio was created in October 2007, when the article was “constructed” by copypasting sentences or complete sections from various sources and mixing it up with (hopefully) self-written stuff. Yesterday I discovered this and requested a speedy deletion.
It was declined, and the Admin told me that it would be better to go step-by-step through the article, find the sentences/sections that are CopyVios and remove them. His reasoning was that even if the copyvio-sections were removed, the article would still have enough “substance” to keep on existing, and that since 2007 certain parts of the article that initially were copyvios have by now been changed by several users so that they can’t be called copyvio anymore.
I did as the Admin said, but well, almost the complete article is CopyVio. And, if you compare the current version with the first one, you see that the difference is actually not that big. Approximately 90% of the article are still the same.
Take a look please at the very first version with copyrighted material. It is structured into 4 major sections: Introduction, terminology, history, styles & techniques.
Now, again, please compare this with the current versionand you’ll see that basically all of the copyvio stuff is still in there. If you remove it, all that's left is half an introduction and three paragraphs of the "History" section. Thus my suggestion is to delete the whole article and let it restart, hopefully under the supervision of someone who knows what is allowed in the Wikipedia and what not. DavidDCM (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay guys, you convinced me that deletion is not the proper way for this article. I'll try to work on the article in the next few days. I only ask for one more advice: Should I completely remove the "History" section or keep the white part of the text? I could not find a source for that part, but maybe the website it was copypasted from does not exist anymore. It was added to the article at the same edit as all of the copyvio (red) stuff, so I think there's a reasonable suspicion that it might be copyvio as well? Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. --DavidDCM (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy if someone would support me building this article up again. :) But in regards to your surprise: Every article can be deleted if certain criteria are fulfilled. Being well known does not mean that an article can not be nominated for deletion. Even the article United States could be deleted if one of the criterias for deletion would be fulfilled. --DavidDCM (talk) 10:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think what DavidDCM want is to do a partial deletion of the article back to completely non-copyright violation version. Thus, in order to do that, the article needs to be deleted to have a fresh start and reupload together with the history section without the copyright violation. If the copy vio entries are still in the history section, editors can easily revert or put back again the copyright paragraphs or sentences to this article. I think a history purge on the article is needed, just a history purge which needs the article deleted and recreated. ax (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation, not notability is the issue, for the third time. Please read the discussion before you post. What WP:Cleanup has to do with this is beyond my knowledge. --DavidDCM (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Open Hearts (2002 film). Cirt (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested ((prod)) with no reason given. Pretty blatant violation of WP:NFF. Matt (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. One two three... 03:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails both basic and additional criteria for notability. Also issue of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E. This article is about some custody battle involving a child, so there is also a privacy of names issue too. Martintg (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. One event. Peltimikko (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Michael Martin (politician). While there is substantial support for a merger, the support for deletion makes it clear that an article shouldn't exist at this title; the content is there under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this might be a news story but a list of people involved in it is unnecessary. This list isn't notable. This should at the very most have 1 section in Michael Martin (politician). Computerjoe's talk 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The article is a POV fork. The majority of information in it duplicates the main article on this subject—Nanking Massacre controversy. Some text was actually copied verbatim from the latter. So, I see no justification for its continued existence. (If someone thinks that some parts of this article could be merged into Nanking Massacre controversy, I am ready to provide a copy of the text for the personal use.) Ruslik (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted PCPP (talk) 09:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article that violates WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Most of the article's content is well covered in Nanking Massacre controversy, and only a fringe minority of historians deny the the occurance of the Nanjing Massacre. WP is not a promoter of fringe theories. Furthermore this article is written in a manner than gives weight to the denialist claims with little refutation from mainstream historians, making it seem as the Nanjing Masscre denials are undisputed, especially the photographs section, which violates NPOV. Last of all the tone of article heading higly suggests that the massacre is fabricated, instead of being a concept held by a minority.--PCPP (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose early close of this AFD with result being Merge any salvageable text and then redirect ***
- Withdrawn. --Richard (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW, and by extension WP:IAR. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject has explicitly requested deletion via OTRS (2009051710005054). PeterSymonds (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy-deleted (G7) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More of the same undocumented and unfindable hoaxing as Battle of Lemos, House of Lemavia and Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who then was a gentleman?, first you accused me of being from Chicago, and I have proven you wrong (follow my IP address). Second, you said there were no references to these battles, and I proved you wrong again sending you the article of Dr. Brian De Toy. Third, you asked for a website (as if websites were the only acceptable source in Wikipedia), and I even sent you a link extracted from a history book fully dedicated to the "Batalla de Monforte de Lemos" ( http://www.1808-1814.org/articulos/monforte.html). Fourth, you said this was a hoax, and I pointed out websites citing the list of people killed that day ( http://club.telepolis.com/apenela/HISTORIA.htm). Fifth, you started to nominate a whole bunch of articles for deletion without reading any source. Sixth, every time I prove you wrong, you keep shooting in the dark for the next "nice try". Please, I understand where you are coming from, but as a new contributor I find hard to believe ONLY VETERAN CONTRIBUTORS CAN WRITE? This would be the end of Wikipedia.
A hoax? This link comes straight from the Ministry of Culture of Spain. These are protocols of nobility about the House of Lopez de Prado, another article you nominated for deletion without ever reading it:
http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=2&txt_id_fondo=184080
I hope this answers all your questions and we can keep working together. (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:
Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this article contains a lot of original research.
(PROD tag removed) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod with the reason that it is a longstanding article and should be sent to AFD for discussion. As in my reason for prodding, I cannot find anything that can establish any verifiability of this Nintendo feature. All the information given are from unreliable sources, and nothing by those who edited the article have been able to provide anything about this port. Because of the non-verifiablility, there is no logical place for a merge or redirect; also, this port may refer to several consoles. We have tried at WT:NIN to see where this can fit, but we couldn't find anywhere in which it could. MuZemike 07:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any google news results of WP:RS. Nothing else obvious. No indication of notability in article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kanonkas : Talk 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undocumented hoax, related to Battle of Lemos and Don Manuel Joseph Martín López de Prado Rodríguez Díaz de Armesto y Varela, X Baron of Lemavia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop doing this. There is more than enough references listed in the article which you can check yourself. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have cited dozens of books, all well known and available at the Library of Congress. Since when is a requisite for an article to be based on websites? (Qqtacpn (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:
Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by PMDrive1061. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article already Exists. See Apple Ipod SKATER Speak. 06:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, written entirely from primary sources, appears to have been created solely to push an extreme POV Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shoemaker's Holiday, the article states well known facts, documented in the sources provided. Like in the case of the Battle of Lemos, being an event part of Spain's history, it has been published mostly in Spanish. (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).[reply]
I quite don't understand. You have just marked for deletion all of my articles, which are perfectly noted and referenced. It looks pretty arbitrary to me to just label them for deletion, when most encyclopedias in Spanish language include them (Gran Enciclpedia Gallega, Enciclopedia Garcia Carraffa, Enciclopedia Espasa, etc.). (Qqtacpn (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
None of these articles show up in the Spanish Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all your questions for hours. You have made very offensive accusations based on:
Anyone with access to this Encyclopedia (http://www.loc.gov/rr/hispanic/geneal/index_gc.html), available at the Library of Congress and everywhere in the Spanish Speaking World, please go to Volume 72, pages 101-120. Or go to the http://www.granenciclopediagalega.com/, also available in the Library of Congress, and search the article dedicated to Lopez de Prado. These are but a few more proves that these individuals are making false accusations. I do not doubt your intention is right, but the conclusion here is that a very small number of Wikipedians ignorant of well published research actually have the power to remove legitimate content. Fine, if this is how flawed Wikipedia is, please go ahead and remove these articles. They belong to the paper encyclopedias available in the Library of Congress. End of discussion. (Qqtacpn (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The result was nom withdrawn, speedy keep. Dlohcierekim 23:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
prod was contested. I am unclear as to why this artist is considered notable. Unless article can be improved to the point that his notability is made clear to those of us not familiar with his work, I suggest article be deleted as nn artist. If he is truly notable, someone should be able to tell us why. Postcard Cathy (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom withdrawn, request speedy keep.Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 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)) . |
Notice that the qualifiers are "significant", "interesting", "or unusual enough".... not all 3 together, but any one of the three.
Also, "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy" (in other words, it's not a hard and fast rule). Dogtownclown (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I've spent a little time doing some research and editing/pruning the article. I've also added some information and sources which bolsters the article's notability, it is clearly "interesting" and "unusual enough" to be included in this encyclopedia as a biography stub - in my opinion. Dogtownclown (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)— Dogtownclown (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
"All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion. An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron
I agree! Anyone want to help? Dogtownclown (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.. | ” |
For anyone who questions if I am notable as a model I'd like to think that appearing on billboards in Times Square, having my face in the NBC window in Rockefeller center, appearing on subway ads all over NYC, as well as having my face in Vanity Fair Magazine, Variety, and multiple commercials for the USA Network Character project would qualify. If anyone would like they are free to visit my Model Mayhem profile and see all of my other modeling credits which include nation wide ads for Hot Topic as well. I have also appeared in over 30 music videos. As a writer, I was on staff at Frontiers magazine (easily verified) and have interviewed a wide range of celebrities. As a curator I honestly can't think of anyone in the art world who is written up from a wide range of media as TMZ and NPR. All of which can be found on the internet. My IMDB verifies the tv programs I have done as well. I've also been a guest multiple times on Sirius radio for Maxim magazine and Out Sirius Q. I also appear in multiple books such as American Character for the USA Network, Faces of Sunset Blvd, Vacation Standards, and the update to LA Bizarro. As a performer I've opened for the Dresden Dolls and played on stages all over LA. Again, anyone who took the time to google would know this. So if I appear in books, magazines, television, radio, ad campaigns, and perform wouldn't that qualify for a wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenoraclaire (talk • contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable congregation; no coverage in reliable sources, not a historic building, no notable clergy. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 02:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jars of Clay (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, no sources, didn't chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Jars of Clay (album). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song, didn't chart, no reliable source coverage. Unlikely redirect term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Jars of Clay (album). Cirt (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. No idea what Christian CHR chart that is, but it ain't Billboard and is therefore not a "major" chart per WP:MUSIC. Without the chart position, there's no trace of notability for this song. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook example of how not to do "in popular culture". Listy, unsourced, no correlation besides that each tangentially touches on homelessness. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, the solution that breaks the cycle, as also exemplified so many times before, is a proper article, written based upon sources that discuss the subject, rather than written in cargo cult fashion. See Portrayals of God in popular media (AfD discussion), for example.
If anyone feels like taking up the challenge of actually writing article content, you could do worse than starting with Homelessness in American literature (John Allen, Routledge, 2004, ISBN 9780415945899) as a source for a literature section. Or you could use the "Images of homelessness in 19th and 20th century American literature" and "Images of homelessness in the media" entries in David Levinson's Encyclopedia of homelessness (SAGE, 2004, ISBN 9780761927518). This is, after all, a — literally — encyclopaedic subject with in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Show the cargo cultists how this is properly done. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exclusive-release album, no reliable sources. Sold only at Target for a short period and didn't get any critical reviews. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable travel website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Discussion to merge elsewhere can take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
wp:or - This list is a subjective opinion regarding what constitues 'political rap', and such a cetegorisation is not verifiable from reliable sources Chzz ► 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This no doubt charming book does not appear to be notable. The worldcat entry for the author (who, by the way, may be notable) shows that this book is held by 17 libraries worldwide—an indicator of non-notability. An all-dates Google news archive search draws a blank. A web search generates catalog listings and several mirrors of the current and previous versions of this article. There are no editorial or even user reviews at the Amzon UK page for the book. Bongomatic 08:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure plot summary, fails WP:NOTE and WP:NOT#PLOT. Scheinwerfermann (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nn social networking website Gilllnnm (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already boldly redirected.. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable block of music video programming. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Much Music. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable block of music video programming. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flunks WP:DIRECTORY. No discernible notability of topic Scheinwerfermann (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fiji Mission to the European Union; nothing to merge, this is substantially a duplicate of that page. Flowerparty☀ 00:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG, nothing particularly notable about this embassy. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Twitter. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in two minds about this. I'm sure the Twitter-fans will call it a "revelation" and "one of the most important moments in internet history" but I'm not really buying it. Some people from the internet got together and...well, that's where the story ends. There are various mentions of this is reputable sources but I'm still doubting the article's worth. Hence, I'd like to know what the community thinks of this article and its future. Greg Tyler (t • c) 11:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally included self-published original research (which I have removed). Now it reads a little advert-ish. Doesn't seem like there is much here to be saved that isn't already in the main articles already referenced. JCutter (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been adding brief comments about many other speculative systems, and intend to e-mail the progenitors of these systems so that they may update and augment these. This way, the referenced article can become a living source for those interested in innovative and speculative transportation systems. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The subject does not currently meet the notability guidelines for politicians and there is no evidence of meeting the primary notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnoteworthy schoolteacher currently running for office (Nova Scotia general election, 2009). Election press-release type bio; I added {advert} and {notability} tags, which original poster removed without comment or changing the article. Hairhorn (talk) 06:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If she wins, it should be patently obvious that she should hold a wiki entry, though I agree with the deletion prior to the results (she looks to have an edge on the incumbent) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.67.194 (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unreferenced article on a specific amusement park ride with no real assertion of notability (it comes closest with "The Haunted Mansion is constantly awarded for it status as best traditional darkride by DAFE and Amusement Today", which this web page [not cited in the article] does seem to claim). The whole thing seems to be original research (for example, "The first stunt is...a scary-looking man who pulls-open a door while a automatic sound clip say [sic] "Welcome" in an eerie tone"), though it appears that the web page I linked to above was probably the source for much of the article. Unreferenced or not, I just can't see the notability here. A good rating by an online darkrides-enthusiast group just doesn't cut it. --Miskwito (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals and a lack of reliable sources means that she does not meet the primary notability criterion either. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see evidence to support notability, per WP:CREATIVE or WP:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Note, I have removed a large number of external links, see diff. I have searched on Google News (no hits), Google Scholar (no hits), Amazon.com (no hits). The standard Google search only appears to show blog sites etc, I can see no reliable sources there. Chzz ► 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable sources that notability. It was nominated for VFD in 2004 and the result was keep. For some reason, the discussion got moved to the talk page of the article. Iowateen (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill introduced in the US Senate. Has received some coverage: Tyler Morning Telegraph and CNN. But it's not law yet, and there are lots of bills introduced that never go anywhere. Coverage is not substantial enough to make it noteworthy, thus it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Atmoz (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shades of a Lost Moon is a demo recorded by Swedish band Draconian. According to WP:NALBUMS, Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources--and this album is not an exception to the rule, as I not found any reliable and relevant source to reach its notability. Cannibaloki 02:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish online encyclopedia claims to "one of the the most popular general reference work on the Internet in Turkish language". I don't speak Turkish, but the Google translation doesn't support that claim. Has not been the subject of third-party reliable sources. Atmoz (talk) 03:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was nominated once for deletion in 2007 and kept with the assertion that material added during that AFD satisfied notability concerns, However, a review of that sourcing indicates that it does not. One is an obituary in his hometown paper, one is to an XM Radio page that no longer exists (Joe Murphy is not found in a search of the XM site), one confirms his nomination for a podcasting award (he did not win) and one is a band's blog (not a reliable source). There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person, rather there are many blogs and podcasts that offer tributes following his untimely passing. Wikipedia is not a memorial and the gentleman does not pass WP:N or WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Papa Roach discography. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The EP is extremely rare and is not covered at all in reliable sources. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh! 23:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]