The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The list is based on a census-designated place. CDPs do not have static boundaries unlike cities, towns, villages , townships, counties or states. The Census Bureau could redefine the boundaries of Amenia at any time for any reason, or even abolish the designation completely. As such, to use a CDP as a geographic limit is not wise. The list includes only 4 items, and given the CDP criterion for defining the list, it's overcategorized. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted A7 - no sources or assertion of notability. Mfield (Oi!) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to have any links or other third party sources to indicate notability Aardvark31 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIC Donorcycle entry [1] exists on Wiktionary, as it should. Not going to be expanded beyond stub. Dbratland (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom for IP editor: rationale from talk page :"This article should be deleted since it simply asserts that the number of women in computer science is decreasing, without given any numbers relating to this change--much less any citations. If it is true that this assertion is not supported by any evidence, of course it should be deleted. Otherwise, citations to the evidence or at least some un-cited statistics (showing a decline) should be given." I have no opinion at present. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There are obviously more than enough sources now to show notability. (non-admin closure) Timmeh!(review me) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album, no notability asserted. Created by blocked sock puppet. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no reliable sources to attest to its notability Theserialcomma (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
learn2wiki. i never "hit" 3rr. 3rr means 4 reverts, and i reverted 3x. as for everything else you said, you're wrong again. i reported the user and he was indef'd. win! then he came back, we all made up, and we are all happy. win again! and, by the way, dr. wikipedia, check the history of the articles in question to see the first time i really nominated it with a prod delete (hint: it was may 23rd, not the 25th). thank you, watch the civility, and welcome to wikipedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, because there are no independent reviews of this song nor has it ever charted. Someone posted incorrect information about this song allegedly charting on the Billboard Hot 100, but my search on billboard.com yields that that info was false. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable charity. Whilst there is perhaps some notability regarding a controversy I see absolutely no suggestion of the charity itself being notable. The article was very likely created by the President/Chairman as self-promotion. See COIN discussion here and another AfD for the article about the President/Chairman here. Smartse (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Editors may want to consider a redirect to aid navigation - this AfD result does not preclude the creation of such a redirect Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This species does not exist. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a commonly studied budding yeast species of high commercial importance, is not in the same genus as Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the fission yeast, despite the similarity in genus names. Schizosaccharomyces already has a genus page with most of the information listed in this article, and both Schizosaccaromyces pombe and Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have species pages. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about footballer who has not yet played in fully-pro league. Article was dePRODed, but no evidence provided that article passes WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Alleged books published are one that is just a conference publication (not a real book) and one without even an ISBN. Was prodded seven days ago by someone else with the rationale "no real notability shown, no independent references", prod was removed at end of that period by an account known for deprodded masses of articles without reason. DreamGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about footballer who has not yet played in fully-pro league. Article was dePRODed, but no evidence provided that article passes WP:N or WP:ATHLETE Jogurney (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP. Was prodded by anotehr using, with the explanation "Non-notable. Unsourced article with none that meet WP:RS that I could find. IMDb just shows a few bit parts and Google News produced nothing." - but that prod was removed by an account that has a long history of deprodding things without any rationale that follows Wikipedia standards. Updated to add: And has since been blocked as a sock of a banned user. From the model's website under the sample the kind of things shown suggest very minor work. Other claims on page unsourced, and if they were true you'd think her own website would have that info at the ver least (not that that would meet our requirements for multiple independent sources etc. etc.) DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explicitly fails WP:NFF as the film is still in pre-production. No prejudice against recreation when reliable sources confirm that filming has commenced. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article for an obscure mayor of a town. It is only a few sentences long. It does not even have the mayor's date of birth. Unless it can be expanded, (which I doubt it can for someone so obscure), it should probably either merged, redirected, or deleted entirely. Bibbly Bob (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to panel beater. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining speedy for db-nocontext. If the point of the article is to define the term "bodyman", that would fit better at Wiktionary. If not, then a merge is possible. I can't find a suitable "deletion discussion" category, so I'm notifying WP:CARS. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage in Boston Magazine but lacks the significant coverage required to establish notability. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<--
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declining WP:CSD#A9 speedy deletion and taking to AfD; there are some technical points about A9 and allmusic.com I'd like to discuss. The page University of North Florida Jazz Department exists; so does that mean, for the purposes of A9, that we should speedy or not, when the band is the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I"? Also, I see "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble" on allmusic.com, but the entry is very short; does that suggest we should have a page on the Jazz Ensemble in addition to the department? And finally, if I'm trying to make a call on A9, and there's no page on the band but I have reason to think we might want a page on the band, what do I do? Inquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band is listed as the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because it is a specific group of musicians who are a part of the larger University of North Florida Jazz Department. There is a Jazz Ensemble II and III, as well as other groups like the UNF Guitar ensemble and UNF Wind Ensemble. The album "With All My Love" is listed as being by the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because they are the specific group on the recording. I have included a link to the UNF Jazz Ensemble I's page on the UNF website. I hope this clears up any problems at that this article is not deleted because it is an important accomplishment by the music department of the University of North Florida.
-The222
-->
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP, created by COI account. Fails notability quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant spamvertising for a product that promises to make your dick harder, for longer. You know, "as seen on tv." Problem, no reliable independent sources cover this dubious product. I would like this to be speedy but the article asserts notability; it was written, apparently by a for-hire wikipedia article writer/promoter. A review of his prose will make it clear why he couldn't get a reputable writing gig. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. The participants who favored keeping the article are apparently related and/or involved with meatpuppetry, with arguments that do not carry policy-based reasoning, such as proof of notability. Jamie☆S93 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | For the benefit of the closing administrator, a large number of participants in the keep section appear to be friends (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin). Thus I advise their reasoning be weighed with scrutiny in the close, and perhaps even consider the accounts listed as one entity, or discount them completely. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Unsourced BLP, no notability established, promotional in tone, etc. This person is an Italian and the Italian Wikipedia deleted the article about him, so why would we have one? DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO. A single appearance on a television show in 2007 doesn't confer substantial notability or provide enough references for a useful biographical article. Nathan T 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy Nom withdrawn. as promised. Users found to establish notability. StarM 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The team that he allegedly plays for (unsourced) is "Greek professional football club based in Piraeus, currently competing in Beta Ethniki, the Greek second division" which doesn't sound like the highest professional level. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE and while there are a metric ton of ghits but it appears to be a popular name since most refer to artists, not athletes even w clarification. So no evidence he passes WP:GNG. Will withdraw if someone can find what I can't. StarM 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As Dank said, G4 does not apply here because the previously-deleted version was different. Non-admins can't see this, but the most recent revision was certainly an improvement, more context and several references (rather than just 1 ref to IMDb). Jamie☆S93 17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor/singer. Appears to have only one role of any note, and that's just in a single London production. Most references are basically stubs or agent listings. Not enough experience to merit his own article yet. If and when he gets more fame, then we'll rvisit this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, a lack of sources independent of the subject that discuss this person as their subject. No notability as an athlete and little as a blogger. Statements that he is a celebrity are unconvincing without reliable sources that attest to this celebrity. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BIO#Athletes, an athlete is notable if they have competed professionally or participated in something like the Olympics or World Championships. Titus has not done either, and none of the sources establish notability from a reliable, third-party source. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mark Titus is noteworthy for much more than his (minimal) athletic accomplishes. The reason he is famous is his blog, which has been featured on yahoo and ESPN. Club Trillion (his blog) has become a must-read for fan's of the Big Ten and has made him a celebrity in the mid-west. He deserves to have a Wikipedia page, so please consider his overall contributions to society. Thanks! --Jhigh 43 (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just added information regarding an interview between him and ESPN's Bill Simmons. (an ESPN story)--Jhigh 43 (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, he is not on Wikipedia as a result of his athleticism. He should be on here because of the impact his blog has had on the college basketball scene, in particular the Big 10. An article about him has been on Yahoo!'s home page, and he was interviewed by a top-level journalist/talk-show host at ESPN. In all honesty, he's relatively horrible at basketball, but he keep's making news as a blogger and his name has become household among fans of the Big 10. --Jhigh 43 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mark's twitter is also followed by nearly 3000 people including celebrities like Mark Cuban, Shaquille O'Neal, Taylor Swift, John Mayor and ESPN's Bill Simmons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.145.83 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To whoever deleted all of the information regarding Titus' senior season/Club Trillion; quit trying to disprove Mark Titus' relevance by erasing it from the the article in order to promote your agenda. Thank you! --74.36.12.112 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7. The article was substantively the same as a version that was speedied earlier today. Author blocked as a spam/promotion-only account. Blueboy96 22:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of non-notable businessman. Oscarthecat (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. One two three... 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
only Finland has a resident embassy in Syria. I could find very little coverage of bilateral relations, most of it was in multilateral context. [38]. most relations are in a Syria-EU context. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random unencyclopaedic trivia, does not deserve an article of its own, nor more than a passing mention in the parent article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just declined the speedy on this as I'm not certain that A7 covers a religious place of worship. Is a church a club/organisation in that context? Perhaps, perhaps not, so bringing here for wider opinion. If consensus heads to A7 speedy delete, then I'm not going to disagree. GedUK 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another completely random combination with non resident embassies. the only coverage I could find is on the football field and Eurovision [39]. I would also oppose redirect because there is no relation of note to redirect. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acting student that has done lighting work for a series of amateur college plays. Non-notable Passportguy (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as G12 by Dank. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to AFD this instead of A7, as something of a test case. This lady is a newsreader for Naked News. As far as I can tell, that's her only claim to notability. So, the question is, is that enough to pass the notability threshold. I do not believe so. There are some other Naked News readers with articles and no other claims to notability. So depending on the outcome of this debate, those others may or may not also be AFDed soon after. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. Sources given are iffy, google turns up with nothing beyond their official website and an entry on myspace. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G11) by Dank. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable iPhone application, borderline db-club Passportguy (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Benito Mussolini. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork that can be more than adequately covered in the Benito Mussolini article. Prod removed without comment by article creator. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Flybridge Capital Partners. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Single source is the organization and also indirectly through a press release from the organization republished in the Boston Globe. Originally was a cut and paste from the organization's website. After adding a warning, the original author made a few changes to paraphrase. Further attempts to communicate with the author have been unproductive/ignored. Logo was also deleted on Commons due to lack of verification by the same author as to his/her claim of ownership over the organization's logo. Additionally, I am uncertain about the notability of this organization given its lack of 3rd-party press. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 13:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of previously deleted material after coi warning (User:Cozzpublications created article Cozzen Publication). No indication through a Google search company is notable. Greedyhalibut (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for lack of notability since April 2008 yet from what I can see in the history no attempt has been made to expand the article, nor to add references. It is a club for a single make of motorcycle that exists in a single country - and like the other article (BMW Motorcycle Owners of America) I believe it is about an unremarkable organisation and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged for lack of notability since April 2008 yet from what I can see in the history no attempt has been made to expand the article, nor to add references. It is a club for a single make of motorcycle based in a single country . I believe it is about an unremarkable organisation and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments for or against deletion should probably speak to WP:ORG. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources is what is usually needed. Drawn Some (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as no one is suggesting delete anymore. Tavix | Talk 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod with the saying "non-notable actor, his only roles were minor and not noteworthy." An IP removed the tag 4 days later and failed at trying to expand the article... I still stand by my original prod rationale. Tavix | Talk 07:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion proposed. The article is spam.Galassi (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete comments DGG (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NF OlEnglish (Talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another for the WP:HAMMER. No title, no confirmed release date, only one track named. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has many problems:
This article might be keepable if these issues are cleared up; I'm listing it here to try to get something done, since it's been stagnant for two years. —Bkell (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a bold redirect to Consciousness#Merkwelt per author's implicit request. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable term: [51], possibly original research -- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The level of references clearly indicates there is enough use of the term to merit its inclusion, while it is a technical concept, it is a widely used one. Google searches are not a criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. How is this original research if it is referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for doing that, but this process infuriates me when I have references to back its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could I then include the information in the AI article then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine just delete it then, I have added the content to the consciousness article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus on the talk page to date is to delete this article.[52] PBS (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that people do not have to repeat what has already been said, here is a copy of the conversation from the talk page: |
---|
I see no merit in this article as it is currently constituted, let me know if this article is put up for an AfD. --PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"running around WP trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles" (BW quote). I can think of three editors who are, or have been, doing precisely that. More accurately they are briefing against the term, to use a political analogy, and are opportunistically removing it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.
I support the deletion of this article --T*85 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Purple Arrow - have you actually read British Islands? It does not mean what you think it means. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] * Delete Articels about military history would normally relate to the last existent political entity --Snowded TALK 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] * Delete The subject matter is already well covered by other articles. Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
--PBS (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was good faith nomination withdrawn. No arguments for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non notable radio show with no information on hosts or what it broadcrasts. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep: nom changed his mind, all other opinions are keeps with one neutral, so there is no one left arguing for a deletion. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply an un-manageable list. IPs constantly edit warring over each other's opinion as to which band is and which band isn't "Nu metal". Also constant addition of non-notable bands. This isn't a fan-list or "my local band's promotional tool" but unfortunately it's treated as such. It's been tagged as needing sources for over a year now and still none are present. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 08:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blog site. Previously up for speedy db-web, but does appear to have some notability+sources, so AfD raised to get further opinion.Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe the sources are sufficient. If you disagree, that is fine. Another source has been added. Also, Alexa's statistics are not reliable, they only retrieve information from users with the Alexa toolbar installed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictric (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blogger; may have been written by the subject herself, an act of COI. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WP:GNG does not apply. We have stricter guidelines for biographies, particularly those of living individuals. لennavecia 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a random combination with non resident embassies. close to no third party coverage [55] except football coverage and this and this, which both don't make an article. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability hasn't been established. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted or evident; possible hoax Kiwikibble (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, unreferenced, apparent self promotion/blog. Hate to waste time at AFD but it asserts notability (critically acclaimed architecture), however any admin wandering by feel free to CSD. 7 talk | Δ | 05:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A fellow new page patroller declined to speedy this, and I'm respecting that. PROD unsurprisingly contested by the author, who had not edited prior to creating this article (and is also pretty clearly the subject). A pittance of ghits, but most are social networking sites. Does not seem to satisfy the GNG. Nosleep break my slumber 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think the office he was running for was notable, but apparently it is. WP:POLITICIAN states that being a candidate or even being elected to public office does not by itself confer notability, though. Nosleep break my slumber 05:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer with only an internet-release single. Fails both general notability requirements at WP:BIO as well as WP:MUSIC. The article was extremely promotional and has been cleaned up but she still is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination. all coverage seems to be a multilateral not bilateral context [56] not even sure if their football sides have even played each other (which usually comes up in these searches). LibStar (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The combined sources are sufficient to satisfy notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is about a minor local government politician and unsuccessful candidate for federal parliament. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable at present. Grahame (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No landslide, but the weight of argument (User:Peter cohen's analysis is particularly convincing) and consensus favors deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient notability. Previous afds have established that members of orchestras (which in themselves may be notable) are not necessarily appropriate subjects, unless they perform regularly as soloists as established by independent reviews. Richard Bamping appears in some local Hong Kong publicity media, but I can't find anything substantial. I'd be happy to change my opinion if bona fide reviews can be found and the article improved to push this over the bar. Kleinzach 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims notability but there are no sources for verification. I looked for some news coverage ([58][59]) but can't find any articles to back up the claims made in the article. The only inclusion guideline I can think of that would pertain to this article (besides the general notability guideline) is WP:PRODUCT which it fails. OlYellerTalktome 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 00:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination. almost all coverage is in a multilateral not bilateral context [62], although I'm sure their football sides have played each other. Cypriot foreign ministry lists a number of minor agreements including the vaguest "Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Mechanism of Consultations on Matters of Mutual Interest". LibStar (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP:Notable. The article itself says that there is no reliable information on the topic. If the Satanists have not cared to inform the public about their holidays why should WP have an article on the subject? Borock (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep- just bothered to read the nice short article.:) It is factual and informative in it's current form, explaining the role of fundies and the true satanic holidays. It will dispell the myths while explaining about them. Thank you to those who cited etc the article and bothered to actually google themselves before nominating for afd. Sticky Parkin 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested, so I am relisting this as an AfD. No individual notablity established per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, more specifically the last line: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 01:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jamie☆S93 00:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination. non resident embassies. the recognition of Montenegro should be in Foreign_relations_of_Montenegro#States_that_have_explicitly_recognized_the_Republic_of_Montenegro. very little third party coverage (except 1st article of search), most of it in a multilateral not bilateral context. [63] LibStar (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I originally PRODed this, then the creator removed it. A quick Google turned up no RSes. Deletion suggested. Ipatrol (talk) 00:30, 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)) . |
![]() | Note: for anyone who is not normally involved in article deletion, here are some terms to know:
|
CEVO was originally Cyber Evolution and was shortened to CEVO but Cyber Evolution still stands as a name of the llc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.195.6 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Peter David. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speedied this on OrangeMike's recommendation because it didn't appear to have any independent sources (Peter David appears to have some connection to comicmix.com, and the other two links were to his own website), or to assert that there were likely to be any, but by request and on reflection, I was too hasty ... there have been enough edits on this that it deserves community scrutiny. So scrutinize. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory of magazine covers. The individuals on this list are clearly notable, but they are not notable for having appeared on this magazine cover. There do not appear to be reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon of being on this magazine cover other than trivial mentions that one athlete or another happens to have been on it contained within longer pieces that are about other subjects. Otto4711 (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure book with limited importance and notability. Fremte (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The sources found by King of Hearts establish a measure of notability. Although she is only a county represenative, Vartanza is right in saying that the county she represents makes her notable. Because the county in question is a New York Metropolitan county (and therefore much larger and more notable), this increases Yatauro's notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking to AfD instead of speedy; the article has been created 4 times, and was deleted as promotional/non-neutral, so AfD lets us G4 it in the future if it's deleted, and lets us preserve the article if neutral editors get involved. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bootleg EP —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed. Concern was that this is a non-notable person because he hasn't won a title in a major promotion, and the article doesn't have any third-party reliable sources to help prove notability. Nikki♥311 21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Differential cryptanalysis. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find sources in Google showing "Degenerate Keys" in the context of RSA public key encryption. Fails WP:N (no third party sources). AvN 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Not notable. Blogs are not reliable sources. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Transwiki log nn website.--EWJNK (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC) EWJNK (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Bilderberg Group. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just an unsourced, possibly defamatory list of people who are alledged by an unreliable source to be in a giant conspiracy to dominate the world. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former college football player. Last game was the 2008 New Orleans Bowl, can't find even any sources saying he plays now in the NFL. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable publisher. A Google search turned up proof of existence, but I'm not seeing enough to meet notability concerns. Tavix | Talk 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial photographer. This lacks reliable third-party sources which give any indication of notability beyond a working photographer freshacconci talktalk 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane#Tradenames for HFC-227ea used as fire suppression agent. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed, concern was completely unreferenced, no evidence of notability, seems to be pulled from soewhere, though I cannot find the source, created by editor with a bunch of articles based on copyrighted info Terrillja talk 14:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This casually written article about an admittedly "underground, low-budget film" fails WP:N, all 5 general principles and 3 other-evidence principles of WP:FILMNOT. Article cites no reliable sources, and a scan of the top hits of a Google search produces nothing that supports Wiki notability or reliable sources. The article is peppered with the names of a few well-known actors it features, but in accord with WP:FILMNOT, that doesn't establish grounds for the film's notability; see WP:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability, item 2. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor local festival, with no real notability outside its area. Previously deleted by PROD, which was contested at my talk. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]