The result was delete. One (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - "Sarah Whitburn" lawyer produces 16 google hits and none, other than this page, that appear to be about this person Smartse (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Whitburn. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worked with the creator to improve the page, but have no opinion on the notability Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Smartse (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Whitburn. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I worked with the creator to improve the page, but have no opinion on the notability Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Reference claiming that filming had already begun in July 2007 is demonstrably false (it refers to a promotional stills shoot, not actual motion picture filming), and sources as late as March 2008 still refer to this as "to be shooting shortly". No evidence within the past year that this has progressed any further than pre-production. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE.
Drawn Some (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please try to focus on whether or not there are sufficient in-depth resources available to establish notability and create a verifiable article. This is an unreferenced BLP. Drawn Some (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the Titanic's orchestra is significant, in my opinion, verifiable information about it should be included in the existing article on the Titanic rather than in a separate article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed. Reasons: Local junior-league team not meeting guidelines for notability of organizations. Best claim to fame appears to be a player went on to become notable, which does not confer notability. see reply for argument against deletion. tedder (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as a hoax under CSD G3. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a hoax, because:
The result was Keep (NAC) --Unionhawk Talk 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On grounds of being a neologism and artificial synthesis.
I think it should be turned into a redirect to End time. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timmeh! 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On grounds of being a neologism and Wikipuffery. Basically it seems to be about the theodicy of John Hicks, based on the theodicic views of Irenaeus.
Its a bit like having an article about Disraeliism, covering the political views of Michael Nazir-Ali, and these being based on a few views set forth in a comment made by Benjamin Disraeli; his political opinions are notable, but connecting them to Disraeli to such an extent is just vanity, and an inaccurate implied portrayal of Disraeli. Beeton Pineapple covering 'my views about the best way to cook pineapple chunks, based on Mrs Beeton's recipe for upside down cake', would be similarly inappropriate.
You might as well have articles about Bristolean Coca-Cola pricing, which discuss prices of Pepsi in Manchester; its not a notably distinct 'thing', and the title is quite misleading.Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously long list (and far from complete: I can think of at least three missing covers just within my own album collection), poorly sourced, trivial. As influential as the Beatles have been, just about everyone is bound to cover them at some point. Almost none of these covers is particularly notable, either, and the article has been unsourced since May 2007. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete' -Comne on, it should be more of a "who hasn't covered the Beatles". Absurd article. Dr. Blofeld White cat 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. However it is okay to keep the version already now located in userspace. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An assortment of trivia and irrelevant opinions. Article title fails WP:NPOV, no indication as to why we should propagate these reviewers' particular viewpoints. Punkmorten (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to I Love Money. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP about a reality television contestant who is notable for appearing on two reality television shows: Flavor of Love and I Love Money. I would say this still generally qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT (although weakly) as all contestants on I Love Money have appeared before on a reality show. Note that the article was prodded by an IP user, and checking that users history, it appears he/she attempted to post it for AFD. My personal opinion would be either delete/merge or redirect/merge with Flavor of Love as there is already a Noteworthy Characters section on that page. Plastikspork (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, only known for one event. Prod was removed by anonymous IP with only that single edit. References provided do not indicate any notability. Google gives only one hit for "Michael Soumpouros": this very article. Crusio (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep because the nomination was apparently on behalf of a user who says he did not want the article deleted. WP:SK ground 1 therefore applies. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm listing this here on behalf of User:Ht686rg90 to settle a dispute. I don't know what Ht's exact motivation for wanting to delete the article are, and he gives none - [9], [10], [11].
(As 'people' might 'happen' to edit the article or other related article nearly or entirely out of existence), this AFD was created when this was the version of the Theodicy article and this was the version of the Problem of Evil article
I submit that it could not possibly be appropriate to make "Theodicy" a redlink.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References:
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to prod this, but it looks like it might be controversial, so I am taking it here to get a through consensus as to whether this should be deleted. It does not seem notable to me, and is almost G11, but not quite, and has been tagged for cleanup and copyediting since October '07. My personal stance is weak delete. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not require a whole article on Wikipedia, a mention on the Dell article would have been sufficient if needed at all. Holkingers (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At its core this is just a non-notable person, and borderline violation of our policy on attack pages. The only reliable source - a purported article from News.com which is sourced from a third party - mentions this among several internet phenomena which had been noted around 2005. I don't find many contemporary RS's. This is a fad which already died out and probably doesn't need to have an article. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person who has a chronic habit of unneccessarily splitting pages without discussion split this page from NBA on ESPN. I merged them and left a note on the talk but was reverted without comment. Since that article is only 20kb and this is only a list of 4kb, there is absolutely no reason why they should be split. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
((subst:afd2|pg=History of the Major League Baseball Game of the Week|cat=G|text=Page is an exact copy of [[Major League Baseball Game of the Week#History]. It has the exact same images and text verbatim as the main article. I redirected the page there and left a note on the talk page, but a person who has a chronic habit of improperly splitting articles without discussion undid that and did not discuss. That main article is 41kb long total, well within the limits of WP:SIZE, and the two articles would be only 9kb vs. 32kb. There is absolutely no reason why the pages must be split. I suggest redirecting and salting.)) Reywas92Talk 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to New England. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page is an exact copy of New England#Population. It has the exact same images and text verbatim as the main article. I redirected the page there, but a person who has a chronic habit of improperly splitting articles without discussion undid that. Not a single page links here and the full text exists elsewhere, so it should be deleted/redirected and salted. Reywas92Talk 19:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this article fails to meet the notability criteria for people outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It is summarised that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article doesn't seem to demonstrate that this is the case nor do attempts to find more sources using Google turn up much.
I raised this concern on the talk page over a week ago now and whilst the discussion seemed to have quickly become distracted from the concerns I expressed, it doesn't seem any progress was made to address them. There is currently only one source cited that is independent of the subject of the article and that only makes passing reference to this individual. I therefore suggest that this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Adambro (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As WP:INTERESTING as this subject may be, the requirement is non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable third party publications. We simply do not have that. JBsupreme (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, no sources. PROD was removed. —Snigbrook 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another self-created/made-up game Passportguy (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
likely hoax, made-up game Passportguy (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, merely unreliable conspiracy theorist (and anti-conspiracy theorist) websites. A "brief" appearance on national TV doesn't confer notability either. Hut 8.5 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the claim (ongoing for several days now) that the article is "under construction" I am nominating it for deletion. The reason is that the only references are the organization itself, and I don't believe any amount of "construction" will be able to establish the notability of this organization. There is a department like this at most major universities, and no indication what is so special about this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the page is indeed mostly done, with a few outside resource references being taken into consideration soon. However, this page is up here for educational awareness reasons and decided to further develop a Wikipedia page site, since UCF is one of the top largest universities in the country. Even IF there are Victim Services programs in some other universities, most people are not aware of the services and potential that one can derive from this type of program. I would really appreciate it if this page stays up. It WILL be edited and improve in time, especially since I am starting fresh on coding that I haven't dealt with in the past. Please help consider. Thank you. Serene skies (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS: non-notable game with no references to reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a non-notable painting should be deleted. Per WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary. It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. (Or in this case, a couple of press releases three days apart about a non-event that did not happen):
Newross (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find the current interpretation utterly sacrilegious. This is indeed a well sourced and ongoing event and as such, I vote keep.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "author". Lacks reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by original editor.
If capital letters indicate name of a company, it's below threshold. If it's indeed about research into "gravitational field of qi" then horses can fly, but they don't. Incurable fringe, delete or redirect to Qigong. NVO (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of detail and lots of references but still not clear how this person is notable. RadioFan (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced one-line BLP with a claim of notability (avoiding WP:CSD#A7, but without any proof of notability - WP:GNG. WP:BIO - and devoid of any real basic biographical material. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this boy scout camp is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, improper nomination, no summary in nomination of attempts to find sources and sources now found. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy.` Stifle (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been an "upcoming" movie since 2007. For references, please refer to the latest incarnation, which was AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. Because of the different name, I'm not sure if it can be sent under WP:CSD#G4. There is also the deletion log of CSD candidates for this article Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article may be of poor quality but consensus appears to be that the topic is notable (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse than most of the usual foreign relations articles, this one doesn't even mention the embassies that represent each country in the other. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable company that does not meet WP:N or WP:CORP. Non-notable without reliable third part sourcing. It was once speedied per WP:CSD A7 after being tagged for WP:CSD G11 as can be seen seen here. I PRODed, article creator deprodded. The article is now much truncated, not advertising, but sourced only from the subject's webpage. Selfpublished sources can be used, but not as the basis for the article. I searched Google for "Nightline courier", and got these results among which I found no reliable 3rd party sources with significant coverage meeting WP:N. Nor did I get any here. Nothing via Books or News. I asked the creator to provide reliable sources, but none were forthcoming. Dlohcierekim 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable club area of barely notable club. This "theoretical area" (quote from article) is only of interest to the club itself Passportguy (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be no material news references to this whatsoever. See this all-dates Google news archive search. The external references cited in the article do not meet the "significant" or "reliable" criteria of the notability guideline. Bongomatic 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A7) by Cobaltbluetony. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 15:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely attack page (born in jungle, kicked off team for drugs), zero google hits Passportguy (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author appears not to have received any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See this all-dates Google news archive search (I recommend looking at 2007-2008—despite her being active in 2009 there are no hits in this year). Bongomatic 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Software of questionable notability. The reference added by the deprodder is from a blog. A notable blog but a blog nonetheless. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, although neither is there agreement as to what should be done. Merge seems to be favored, but that than be worked out after AfD. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage in independent reliable sources identified after good-faith search. See all-date Google news archive search and Google search. Bongomatic 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Studio engineer with list of unreferenced record Vondell (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Vondell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. Based solely on the disruptive block drama, no prejudice to speedy relisting if an editor in good standing so desires. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meat notability guidelines. Unreferenced BLP. Vondell (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Vondell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. Strong consensus to delete, supported by OR and POV concerns. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:29, 13 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)) . |
Delete I've read this article two times over and I'm still trying to understand what the purpose of its creation is. It's essentially an irrelevant, disconnected, hodgepodge collection of certain scholars criticizing sources originating from Armenians all under the vague banner of "Criticism of Armenian historiography." What exactly does the reliability of the 7th century History of Taron have to do with the Iron Age kingdom Urartu's connections to Armenia? It digresses once more and shifts to a vague and poorly written section on the criticism of Soviet Armenian scholars, then the medieval author Movses Khorenatsi and then questions why Armenians are not infatuated enough with the date May 28 as they are with September 23. The reliability of the scholars further dampen the usefulness of the article: an obscure Polish (historian? archaeologist?) is cited to support, once again, vague claims, and even moreso when it cites a highly unreliable author numerous times, Turkkaya Ataov, who is a vicious denier of the Armenian Genocide.
How any of this falls under such a vast banner as "Falsification of history" and is placed in the same box as Holocaust Denial and neo-Stalinism is beyond me but it does certainly provoke thought as to what its supposed to demonstrate. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can go on but I think the silliness of this article is practically self-evident. If someone is criticizing a historian from the seventh century or a city built in the first century B.C. or a kingdom from the Iron Age, it can go on its respective article; desperately grasping for straws on anyone who criticizes Armenian historians and then lumping them into a single article to thus show their unreliability reeks of POV and it's tragic that Brandmeister, its creator, has taken such lowly steps to demonstrate this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baku87 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an unregistered user probably I have no right to vote but article which calls me an expert in Armenian historiography and cites my weblog should be deleted. Best regards. W.Pastuszka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.223.201.83 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is breathtaking. Are users allowed to so effortlessly infringe users’ rights by editing their own text?! Mr. Brandmeister, this may not be the first time I am saying this on Wikiedpia but your editing habits have a disturbing nature to them. Yes, I called Feigl a so- called historian but I never appended such a prefix to Mr. Toynbee. This is not a war between my words and Ataov, for Ataov is an unreliable source. In academia, schools of thoughts attract criticism and it is a plain fact Armenian scholars have never had problems criticising each others’ positions. The article in fact is not the criticism of a school of thought (which could fit in the article about Armenian nationalism, I suppose) – It’s just an incoherent list of irrelevant material. There is no distinct line of reasoning; almost any criticism found in any book could go in this article under the same pretext. It is akin to creating a 'Criticism of Greek historiography' article by lumping together a classical Greek historian criticising another classical Greek historian.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sifaka, Ray and The Diamond Apex. - Fedayee (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A follow-up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formidable for TYPO3. Timurite (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:SPA nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Casesorcurone (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McHale appears to be a bit part actor and a member of a boy band. Neither make someone notable. His acting credits show no indication of significant parts (with the possible exception of the currently unbroadcast Glee (TV series)). He is a member of NLT (band) currently at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLT (band) but appears to have done nothing notable outside that band. There appears to be no independent reiliable sources that show any individual notabilty for McHale. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable computer game with no reliable sources to it's notability. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:FOOTYN. Dancarney (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, recently invented concept Passportguy (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, there's always someone somewhere enjoying making other peoples live miserable. Nyarnon (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article contends notability, howver zero google hits. Likely advert/spam/nn-group Passportguy (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete spam with no context. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Books writen on Compost[edit]
Article written to promote a book by one author - advertising, Original research, non-notable book Passportguy (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. merge to district article has consensus Nja247 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. (if sourced, the racial integration thing MIGHT be notable) tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. keep consensus, assertion of independant notability Nja247 08:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. due to assertion of indepedent notability Nja247 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c*Merge with the school district., not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Grand Erie District School Board. Nja247 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Google. Nja247 08:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism coined by one specific website. Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as a bad-faith nomination by a sockpuppet of banned user Hilary T. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer Skipper T (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Skipper T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was Speedy delete - WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted content. Feel free to recreate it if and when he actually plays some competitive football. --Angelo (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page is about a non-notable soccer player with no professional appearances and no notable collegiate achievements; therefore fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination with non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
relatively minor relationship that could easily be described in a few sentences here Republic_of_Kiribati#Foreign_relations. non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The discussion tended towards deletion, but I don't feel comfortable calling this a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is trying to be a category. It simply lists a good portion of the wikilinks in the creation–evolution controversy page. Although I don't think a category should exist for this either (we have creationism and evolution cats already), we should at least use the proper mechanism if others insist. Ben (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: This article is a list, but it's not an encyclopaedic list. Please see WP:CAT where it notes that Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. We shouldn't be using article space to categorise like this. As an example, we have Category:Evolution not List of articles related to evolution. Ben (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant self promotion, contributor has twice removed speedy request. No significant evidence of notability Dmol (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nja247 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being a non-notable music genre. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. overall consensus was delete, and the keep was qualified well Nja247 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This product or concept or whatever it could be called has received no coverage in reliable sources. See this Google news archive search (all dates) and this Google web search. Bongomatic 06:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Venezuela. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yannismarou (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Peru. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Mexico. The diaspora group has its own article - Greek Mexican. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Brazil. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Brazil. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biruitorul Talk 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Argentina. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Argentina. Biruitorul Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Yannismarou (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the company has not been established. Article seems to be for promotional purposes based on the fact that it was created by User:IMSN US, a user name that shares the company name. ~PescoSo say•we all 04:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. The individuals listed have no individual notability per Wikipedia standards; effectively, the list is nothing but a giant roster of College graduates. Additionally, it's not based on independent sources. This would be better handled by a webpage at the College's site or even a private website; however, Wikipedia is not a webhost. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Voltage regulator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An essay/technical guide with no assertion of notability. Link does not work - no other citations Greedyhalibut (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: after categorizing it, it may be similar to existing articles, someone with expertise in this area will have to judge. Drawn Some (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(delete) – (View AfD) Both of these articles are about the same non-notable record label, and to say that it violates WP:NPOV would be an understatement. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (Hoax)--Unionhawk Talk 11:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Kakamine[edit]
Non-notable, non-sourced, fictional, mythological creature mhking (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The proposer's reason was "Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM, borderline spam for non-notable book, no reliable 3rd-party references per WP:RS, can find nothing supporting notability online." I agree on all counts. It is borderline spam (not blatant enough to speedy delete, IMO), and it completely lacks independent sourcing. The closest things to sources on the page are the book (in multiple translations) and its website. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted; copyvio. -- Mentifisto 09:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article asserts notability ("first time an African American, owned and operated a private, schedule, international commercial airline"), but there are no meaningful hits on Google or Google Books. The article appears to be written by the airline's owner (User:Bossloubrown signed the article as LBJ = Louis Brown Jr?), and is largely a copy of http://www.knowledgecash.com/infolope.aspx?id=OI173J103451503 — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nomination essentially withdrawn. All are welcome to edit, but I do encourage those who owe a contractual duty to the subjects to ensure that thier edits are within policy. My kudos on the above-board manner in which this has been handled so far. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Failure of verification and single-event notability. Claims to be the first African-American Miss Mississippi, but that seems to be her only truly notable event. She does not appear on her children's TV shows per the show credits, so that doesn't qualify her. The article also is devoid of reliable sources and is an overly peacock-termed autobiography. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred, I will attempt to list this in order so that you can have these reliable sources all found when you google: Toni Seawright. Hetr is a link in relevance to her being Qaasim's Mom?:
It is true that her name appears in one of the credits with a y on it. I'm trying to get that rectified as we speak. I have given you a host of things to look up found right under google. I know it's a lot, but I pray that it is enough for your consideration of withdrawing the deletion of her article and helping me to perfect it. I ask that you help me maintain her board. I thank you in advance. DenieceBetts (talk) May 6, 2009 2:59am
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2981622/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mississippi and
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1211136/ and http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Toni_Seawright/ are her Naked Brother's Band credits. Mystery Girl Pt.1 or 2 should be her other. She's appeared on the show twice as Qaasim's mother. Go to Turbo Nick and you will see both appearances in "Everybody Cries at Least Once" or "Mystery Girl" where she makes a cameo appearance. You can also google Ms. Seawright and you will see that she's released sang backing vocals for a few wellknown artists as well as has her own international dance project released a year and a half ago. There are host of other things that can be found on google concerning Toni Seawright. However, the accomplishment of making history as the first African American to win Miss Mississippi should be enough to be entered into Wikipedia. User:DenieceBetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.208.35 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred is obviously not a fan of either, but, Deniece Betts is a manager of Toni Seawright. I think the animosity to have Toni Seawright's entry deleted comes from the fact that C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) continues to put in Qaasim's article on Wikipedia that Qaasim is 14 and was born in 1995 and he was born in 1996. It is my responsibility and duty to correct Qaasim's board as I edit Toni Seawright's boards as well. As a publicist through G-Q Media, I correct for the both of them as it is my duty to make sure that they are represented and shown in the best of light. I speak for the both of them because I am granted power of attorney to do. Nonetheless, the historical achievements of my client are factual and can be googled at any length to prove data and entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mississippi This can be argued and proven at anytime on various sites. We appreciate C.Fred's "concern".. but it's hard to see where he's coming from with the entries on either board. When C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) continues to alter and change truth about Qaasim Middleton, it affects-not only his reputation and validity of his age when others ask-but also makes him a little upset becuase of the misinformation put in his article by C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log). I will continue to edit Toni Seawright's board throughout the week with factual information and links as I have the time to do so. I will, also, continue to edit any misinformation put on the boards by C.Fred or any other user who gives false and/or misleading information pertaining to my client's son. I As far as Ms. Seawright's board is concerned, we ask the boards to give us the time to edit and reference all articles pertaining to the validity, professionalism, achievements and reputation of Toni Seawight. Thanks in adance, DenieceBetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.208.35 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable future album per WP:HAMMER. The article contains nothing but speculation about a (possible) future album, but there is no title, release dates, singles, etc. Tavix | Talk 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual mhking (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is already covered in the articles Flat-4 and H engine. The author is trying to create a term to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines. The term he has created is not only non-notable, it is also confusing for those looking for the article Opposed piston engine No signature (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable actor, referenced only to his IMDB entry and the actor's own website. Checking his career against the criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER, the only possible match appears to be his role as Garth O'Hara in the Irish soap opera Fair City. The article claims that he was a "lead character" in Fair City, but Garth O'Hara is mentioned neither in the article Fair City or in the List of Fair City characters, so I see no evidence that Sean Power has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" or that he "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following."
I have done a google news search for him, but the process is a little difficult because he shares the name of Seán Power (politician) (an Irish government minister) and a similarly-named major property-developer. However, a Google News search for "Sean Power" actor returns only 8 hits, none of which appear to amount to substantive coverage.
In the meantime, the article appears to being used for self-promotion by the actor himself (see this discussion on my talk page.). I have just removed a large chunk of unreferenced autobiographical material, which had been reinstated after I removed it before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To meet notability requirements: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."
To me multiple means 3 or more. Two very clear, extreme, incontrovertible examples might be interpreted as multiple in a pinch.
notable work/significant role
He also had a significant role in Stuck but I'm not convinced it's notable although it ran in four "world" cities. I might be able to be convinced of this but that still leaves it one short because it's not clear cut. You would have trouble with an AfD for an article on Stuck and I really don't think it is notable.
As far as sources: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
There are 20 listed now. I am being very generous with my assessment of them, some of the ok's are really trivial.
So I'm trying to check information, like "Best Actor Toronto Fringe 1996" because it might be possible to convince me that is a major award, maybe. But the reference given doesn't show that. The website where the reference is supposed to be doesn't show that. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying, the reference doesn't support it. It may or may not be true, but I'm not gong to take Mr. Power's word for it.
I'm not going to try to pick them all apart this way but the summary above shows that some of them are very weak or non-existent and some of them didn't pan out as far as saying what they purport to say. This is an AfD for a BLP and things like this bother me normally and in this situation I'm being asked to re-evaluate after the article is salvaged and this is what I find. At least 30% of them don't mention him by name and most of the rest are trivial.
Also Mr. Powers has an excellent photographer but the web designer who came up with the "bubbles" transition in the photo gallery should be bitch-slapped.
So I have to stick with my original opinion that Sean Power is not notable and the article should be deleted. If it can clearly be demonstrated 1/2/3 major work/significant role that he meets the requirements as I interpret them or if my interpretation is completely wrong I will look at the information again but it's going to have to be laid out for me, I'm not spending another hour and half two hours on this and I'm not going to argue nuances. Drawn Some (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Nja247 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not notable - it's about a few people in canoes and small boats protesting. The wider issue is covered in many other articles e.g. Shell to Sea. Note that this is related to an ongoing discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Corrib_Gas_Articles_.26_Shell_to_Sea Smartse (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
♠♥ 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and is just a directory of businesses. Mohummy (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally notable--at best--blogger. No actual accomplishments, much self-promotional puffery. CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2009 World Series by Renault season. Nja247 08:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not satisfy general notability guidelines, not as notable as for instance Formula One, MotoGP or A1 Grand Prix. D.M.N. (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to World of Warcraft#Community. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, has been here for several months with no proof of claims of notability, only sourcing is self-published. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
another random combination. non resident embassies. Google news search shows up only Eurovision and sporting relations. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously Prod'ed and recreated by the same author, declined another prod to bring to AfD. Stephen 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources found to verify the tour or albums. Also don't forget Category:Elexorien albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sponsorship scandal. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E, right now the article is focused only on him the individual criminal, which is not notable, the Sponsorship scandal article more than adequately covers him. MBisanz talk 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, no reliable sources to find. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily an advert for an non notable art, no secondary sources and no claim to notability Nate1481 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is filled with conjecture and trivia and lists only a single reference: an estimation of the royalties Merv Griffin received from the song's use. The level of detail is far greater than what is necessary. Additionally, references to alternate versions and random solitary incidents where the traditional music was not used far outnumber the usefulness of the other information within the article. The article should be trimmed down to a small paragraph with some referenced history and reincorporated into the main Jeopardy! article. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. Non-notable, short-lived indy comic with one review as ref; fails WP:N. 9Nak (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of coverage in Reliable sources; may not meet Notability; also possible OR. , so speaks rohith. 15:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability since November. Last AFD turned up an interview and one trivial source; interviews generally aren't enough to carry an article. No attempts to improve since last AFD. Yes, he has a wide repertoire, but there is almost no significant coverage of him anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, barely any context, and no indication that this castle is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this castle is moatable or notable. No refs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Liahavichy Castle was a fortified Belarus castle, one of the most significant in Belarus in the 17th century. It was built at the end of the 16th century by the hetman of Liahovichi, Yan Eromin of the Hadkevich family, on a hill in the Belarus town of the same name. It stood on the bank of the Vedz'ma river, surrounded by a moat adjustable by a dam. In the centre stood a two-storey palace. Eromin's son, Yan Korol, the hetman of Great Lithuanian Principality, reconstructed and fortified the castle. The castle and surrounding settlement was destroyed during the Great Northern War of 1700-1721. Is this enough for an article? Fences and windows (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I got some more from another sources quoting "Arhitektura Belarusi. Encyklapedychny davednik" ("Architecture of Belarus. Encyclopedia") - ed.: A.A. Voinau and others, Minsk, Publishing house 2)"Belaruskaia Encyklapedyia" by Piatrus' Brouka, 1993.[96]. There was yet another spelling, Lyakhovichi. Here's a coat of arms:[97] Fences and windows (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has claims of importance (professional team), but gsearch not turning up existence let alone notability. Zero ghits, zero gnews hits, not listed on SOCA's page at canadacricket.com [98]. Either wishful thinking or not notable. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails WP:CRYSTAL because the only things known about this book are trivial and all cited from one source. The production of the book has not yet gained enough attention to warrant an article. Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I withdrew my nom, apparently I searched for Giant CAMPS instead of Giant CAMPUS. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National summer camp, no assertion of notability, no sources. Searching "Cybercamps" or "Giant Camps" (their new name) turns up nothing non-trivial/ secondary on Google or Google News. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 17:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Nja247 08:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subsidiary for failing WP:CORP PirateSmackK (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contains almost no information besides a list of episodes, half of which simply state "need details" (no inprogress or underconstruction tags shown or in the edit history) and the information that is present reads more like a TV magazine than an encyclopaedia entry. Any information that is of use- such as the most notable episodes- would be better placed in the show's main article, though would, I feel require a re-write to make it encyclopaedic. HJMitchell You rang? 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) NB: Apologies for the delay in creating the rationale- I assumed Twinkle had done it for me! HJMitchell You rang? 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Fram (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable journalist who, while has authored a couple of articles, fails WP:CREATIVE. ZimZalaBim talk 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]