The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assess its notability. External links consist of games made with the software, none notable enough to have their own article either. Also written like an ad. NOTE: Article has been deleted before for G11 (Blatant advertising). Admrboltz (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. google searches are an inadequate way of establishing notability. Specific references would be required to rebut the delete arguments successfully. Spartaz Humbug! 21:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for thsi software. Joe Chill (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is uncommon for open source software to have books written about it, so some other measures are needed. Some suggestions (which might fit some but not all of the software articles currently in WP) are:
Please feel free to add to this list.
To conclude, I believe TestLink meets at least 2 of the above criteria, placing it on a level footing with many products that have WP articles, such as Bugzilla. Downsize43 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is great open source software we use on real projects, it's comparable to Test Director, only it's free and the market share of the tool is growing very fast, in the future more and more companies will switch to TestLink. Does it deserve to be in Wikipedia? For sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alaserm (talk • contribs) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:SPAM; WP:NOT; article should redirect to X-Men: Evolution, but was denied by original poster. mhking (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of well written articles about Marvel toys. See Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) for toyline notability.
"The toy or game represents a significant milestone in the development of toys or games, or has demonstrated some form of historical, cultural, or technical significance, or has had a major impact on culture or pop-culture, as referenced through a notable documentary or retrospective. [7] This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant milestone by multiple reliable sources. " The Burger King line was the first to be published with the inclusion of a mini cd-rom. Which would make it notable via the "first to be published in a certain way" clause.
List of works doesn't have Toy or DVD information. If you have a link as to the style of writing for such a list feel free to link to it so the article can be updated to it. 74.47.108.87 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article on a (quick-play) variation on the game of snooker that fails to demonstrate any notability. "How to Play" section removed, but what remains is still primarily about the actual game itself rather than its history, impact etc. Delete. I42 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this deletion. I'm not sure why this isn't any more notable than other variants of other sports. It is an interesting variation of a popular sport which is clearly played in a number of regions. If I were a snooker player and not aware of this variation I would find the article very informative.
As a compromise perhaps the main snooker article should have a similar section to the darts article where some variants are described fairly briefly whilst others have a distinct page. glynandtess —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I'm an amateur snooker player from Staffordshire, and have played this variant of snooker, so it's certainly a widespread, if little known, game. I would be surprised if people who are not snooker players have heard of it. I certainly haven't heard of the variants of other sports and games, those which I don't play, and yet many appear on Wikipedia. There is very little information about it elsewhere on the web, and therefore it's inclusion on Wikipedia acts as a informant to people not in the know. Hopefully someone who knows something of it's history (sadly I don't) will come on here and add to the article - after all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. If the article is deleted, that can't happen... Keep. Chingwakabungya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article title seems to be a neologism(WP:NEO). Hardly any references support the assertion that this view is called "pancomputationalism". There's an impressive list of references and external links, almost none of which support the name "pancomputationalism". Google gives very few non-wikipedia hits for the term. Moreover, the entire article is written by User:Gordanadodig, who seems to be one of the authors of a reference listed in the article, thus this might fall under WP:COI (this being pretty much the only article the user has edited on WP). Almost all the google hits on page 1 for "paninformationalism" seem to be about a talk given by Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, who is possibly User:Gordanadodig. Finally, it seems to be describing the same concept as described in Digital physics. I think redirection to Digital physics might also be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Robin (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I contested speedy because I can't say that it's a blatant hoax. However, I was unable to find any sources regarding this person on Gnews, Gbooks, or Gscholar. Tim Song (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
School Zone: Awards & Accolades Archives ... Keila E. Fong, Sarah C. Hartzell, Michael H. Miller, Blake A. Niccum, Donald W. Ross, .... Lindsey E. Smith, Shawn P. Reddy and Shai Bernstein. ... blogs.chron.com/schoolzone/awards_accolades/ - Cached - Similar
Looks like it was kids having fun who wrote this article. S. M. Sullivan (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this go on the page listing the longest wikipedia hoaxes? It was up for several years. 209.184.165.20 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. Cirt (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivial list of toys that does not assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plays for a second division Albanian team and has apparently made one league appearance in his career. Spiderone 17:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N. A theory posted at the blog of the creator is not notable without reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject in detail. Since there are no such sources, it should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This contribution cites the original publication of the GITMO oscillators at Seeking Alpha. The contribution is not about theory, but rather an applied real-world stock market ("equity market") technical indicator whose background is introduced, methods of calculation and parameter description are provided, along with observed computational results from applying the indicators to empirical data for the Standard & Poors price return index. Several citations are provided, with external links.
There really is no problem with the contribution in terms of the accuracy of the background information, soundness of mathematical approach, results provided (4 images), and accompanying interpretation. Significant effort was devoted to development of the empirical results provided in the contribution, which probably does not warrant deletion. If anything, wait a while to see what the growth in hits is.
Thanks for guidance on notability. Regarding the original source, articles considered by Editors at Seeking Alpha are first submitted as an Instablog, hence the "blog" entry you referred to. Within several days, the original source will likely no longer be a blog, but rather an article focusing on economic issues.
The result was delete. JForget 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:CORP. spam like article. hardly any third party coverage [4]. LibStar (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now please check if there is any problems in the article. Saj2009 (talk) 19:24, 14 Sep 2009
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable, self-published e-book with no assertion of notability. AniMatedraw 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. notability requires actual reliable sourcing and since these are evidently absent the delete arguments are the more policy based Spartaz Humbug! 21:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N. Radio stations with licenses are normally considered notable by default, but pirate stations are not. Ironholds (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 22:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than 3 months after first prod and AfD there are still no reliable, published, third party sources. wp:v: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-09-06t14:06z 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. notability is derived from demonstrating sources and this hasnt happened so the delete votes outweigh the keep arguments Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reference is a forum post, and all the links in the article are to sites that sell these things. Not notable enough for inclusion, and borderline advertising Pattont/c 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009#Outburst by Joe Wilson. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Similar outbursts and stunts have become historically significant (see Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet) but it remains to be seen if this will. At this stage there's no way of telling if such historical notability will become present, and until it does the article should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New article by new user, but might not meet notability standards. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. Little mention on google news apart from articles about "Mad Pride" event rather than the man himself. Being a director and available for public speaking bookings does not of itself establish notability. Any information on his role as director of real value can be merged into MindFreedom International which at the moment makes no mention of him. The page text duplicates http://www.mindfreedom.org/about-us/david-w-oaks/ which is CC2.5 but seems pointless to copy when a reference on MindFreedom International would supply the reader the same information. Ash (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barely noticeable (let alone notable) "think drink." There are no real references here with in-depth discussion except for a review at highlighthealth.com. Drmies (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 14:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-price compilation non notable. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. JForget 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this future album even has a title yet. No confirmation of a release date or any other info. I was unable to find any reliable source info to back p any of the article's claims ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relisted for final time JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because these band members have done nothing worthy of note outside of this band:
Non-notable band with no significant third-party coverage. Band fails WP:GNG on its own. The assertion of notability is that the band contained one notable member, Michael Wittig, however, according to criterion #6 of WP:MUSIC, a band must have two independently notable members to be notable. Godspeed was formed before this guy was notable, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Conical Johnson (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Claims notability but google only finds blog records, no thirdy party sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok ... i will look for references to her work from 3rd parties! (is it correct to leave a message here ?) thanks Triadic2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Could one fix the tag of hangon for an article which is nominated for deletion, through an AfD tag? If so, the author could place one, if he/she could find a third party reference / citation for the article meanwhile. Warm Regards LineofWisdom (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Relisted for final time for more discussion/better consensus. --JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PDFFiller should be renominated separately if one wishes to delete it. NW (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relisted for final time, hopefully more discussion will bring a better consensus. JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Skomorokh 00:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't see notable under Wikipedia:Notability (web) The only real third part source is a Brown U newspaper and it seems it only got that because of the fact it was made by 3 brown students. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to be a notable website. Fire 55 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other articles at the bottom linked to show that it is a notable publication, especially Poets & Writers article, which appeared in print, and is the leading industry mag. I'd also point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Online_magazines to show that online magazines can be considered to be legitimate publications. Sandraeallen (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it troubling that there's not a hard-and-fast rule to determine 'notability'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandraeallen (talk • contribs)
The result was redirect to Libyan Premier League 2009–10. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without explanation. Crystal balling, only source is a Web forum. Durova318 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. per A7 - No assertion of notability JForget 14:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable org. WP:ORG. No independent sources and I could not find significant coverage. No notablity asserted in the article. Creator deleted Prod, notability, and primarysources tags without making any changes. There is an WP:COI issue as it looks like the pastor created this article. Clubmarx (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Pinellas County Schools#Elementary schools. JForget 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, becoming a Montessori school is not a notable event, the best policy we have worked at creating regarding schools, WP:School implies that elementary schools are not inherently notable, and there is no evidence of significant secondary coverage as per WP:GNG. Recommend redirecting to Gulfport, Florida. Terrillja talk 21:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The article has already been renamed and refocused during the AfD.[8] The nomination is no longer really applicable for that reason, though it may be renominated on different grounds if anyone wishes to. NW (Talk) 22:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting deletion per WP:ONEEVENT WP:BLPNAME and WP:BIO. The subject in herself fails notability, whatever about the incident and the aftermath. Though she is deceased, the criteria around BLP still largely apply here. Furthermore, the subsequent legal case surrounding this incident was dismissed. I see absolutely no reason why this biography should be kept. Alison ❤ 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)
The result was speedy delete. per author request (G7) JamieS93 20:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion that the company passes general notability guideline – most references are first-party, others are trivial coverage or with unclear reliability. Little verifiable information; Google search for "heart's home" -heartshome.org yields nothing relevant. Very little inline-sourcing provides difficult verification. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Coldplay. Skomorokh 00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This release isn't notable enough for its own article. No reliable sources provided. Deserted Cities 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here's a source-[http://www.bandsonly.com/coldplay/discography/singles/ode-to-deodorant--brothers--sisters/ ]
And another-[13]
And another-[14]
Is that enough along with the ones that are already on the article?--Coldplay Expert 19:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry but I forgot, Keep--Coldplay Expert 19:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean the interview barely touches it? The entire section of the interview with will champion is about it.--Coldplay Expert 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Sighs) Ok Ill take the article back... :(--Coldplay Expert 21:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a quick question, why does Mince Spies have an article and this one will probably be deleted? (This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument)--Coldplay Expert 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright well what can be salvaged out of my work? (Oh and before you delete this page please give me a head up so that way I can copy its contents into a sandbox article.)--Coldplay Expert 10:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WHAT....are you kidding me? I understand your position but Please!! reconsider you idea. I have realized that A lot of my article that I have created in the past have been....well not good but please assume good faith. I am sorry for my past edits and I will ask others if any article that is Coldplay related that I make in the future is a good idea. In fact I already have see my conversation with JD554 on my talk page. (And his) Oh and one more thing. There have been some good articles of mine in the past like Latin America Tour. I will even take everything off of this page and ask an admin to delete it.--Coldplay Expert 22:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bio is of a blogger and lacks secondary sources independent of the subject; indeed, most of the article is drawn from self-published sources. I conclude it fails WP:BIO. Prod contested by sole author, who appears to be a SPA. RayTalk 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bio is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. The Subject is notable because he appears on many podcasts, is a writer, and is currently writing a book that will be due out for publication in 2011. Nitroxsurfer— Nitroxsurfer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any RS sources to confirm that the following books exist or are planned to exist:
The articles are unreferenced and unverifiable. They may be hoaxes or based on rumours of future books. There is nothing in Google News announcing them. Amazon does not have them to pre-order. They are not mentioned on the author's blog[15] or the publisher's site[16]. All these sources agree that there are only 4 books in the Diary of a Wimpy Kid (series) (plus the DIY book). There will be a 5th book but its title is not revealed[17]. DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Gun (band). (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was mislisted on Redirects for discussion. The nominator -- User:G-macscot (talk) -- is citing reasons for speedy deletion but, since I wasn't sure exactly what they wanted since they seemed to be confused by the process, I've decided to list this in an RfD instead so others can talk about this first. The original nominator said:
The article was marked with just about every problem template including many related to NPOV which I couldn't understand and removed from that article. I've tried to clean things up as much as I could before reposting this here.
Finally, don't take my posting this here as an endorsement one way or another or an argument to delete. I know nothing about Gordon McNeil and am not arguing for its inclusion or deletion one way or another. I'm just trying to make sure this ends up getting discussed in the right place. —mako๛ 18:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving this to the right place. I wasn't exactly sure of the correct procedures. I just found it very strange to have an entire article dedicated to a person with only 3 and a half lines of text on the page. Doesn't seem like an appropriate topic to have an entire page dedicated to the subject, and 4 links to social networking sites at the bottom. Seems to be more of a self-promo/PR page than anything else. Agree with JohnCD's suggestion above - move mention of the subject into the Gun (Band) article.
G-macscot (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable book that does not cite sources to attest notability UltraMagnus (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Artist released debut album this year and apparently has not charted. Durova318 18:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn . Non-admin closure.Note: this may be my last non-admin closure I'll make as a non-admin. MuZemike 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article cites sources, it appears to be primarily WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The term 'artificial sunlight' is widely used, but there's no clear definition for the term, beyond the obvious one that it's an attempt to simulate natural sunlight. There's a lot of words in this article, but very little actual content. Also note that this article was the subject of an improvement drive in 2008. Even with that attention the article still has no clear subject or raison d'etre. Pburka (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*I don't know about a redirect because both articles seem to be about different (albeit similar) subjects. I'd say keep both. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, after looking at the sources, the article is fine, but the title appears to be made up. Maybe it should be merged per above after all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Joke / hoax organisation or simply one so small that no one has noticed it. E-mails and phone calls to one newspaper do not rhylly establish notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. No sources, text admits that releases were unsuccessful. Durova318 16:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not meet WP:ORG notability guideline. Aalto Entrepreneurship Society has not been a subject of significant media attention. According to its own web page, it has ca. 10 active members and has been active only since winter 2009. According to the club's web site, the club has been briefly mentioned in a national news broadcast (MTV3, 2009-08-04, 22:00 UTC +3). However, when one views the broadcast, there is no material about the organization in question. The real-world activities of the organization are minor and non-notable: about half a dozen social gatherings.
As a student club, AES is among the newest and smallest in the (future) Aalto University. However, the club has been very active in all social medias, and a Wikipedia article seems to be a part of this project. Therefore, I think this article is an advertisement in violation of WP:SOAP. --MPorciusCato (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say AES is among the smallest. AES was also featured on Your Hidden Potential [20]. Why this article needs to be deleted? --Klgfuifufguigp (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No sourced content to merge, but feel free to request undeletion for that purpose. Skomorokh 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Title given by a private company to real estate professionals who graduate from its courses. The title is trademarked (big red flag), and there seems to be nothing on it on Google that would not qualify as a primary source. The original version of the article was actually spam for the course curriculum. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Consensus that the topic is not notable, i.e. deserving of a dedicated article, and no reasons offered not to merge. WP:PRESERVE. Skomorokh 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be a notable piece of fictional technology. Spiderone 15:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy. Ikip (talk) 06:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. However, it appears to me that this is a conflict of interest (created by a single-purpose account. The article is unsourced. Don't know about systematic bias, but spam is spam. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn and Redirect to CMDB. Joe Chill (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Skomorokh 00:29, 20 September 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)) . |
Originally prodded. Term is a French synonym for E-book reader (See french e-book reader page). No evidence that this term has widespread usage in English. See this forum. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep with a nod to WP:BEFORE and WP:RUBBISH. Skomorokh 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it currently stands this article is very little more than a stub about a company that does little to claim notability and even less to demonstrate it. The talk page and page history show that this was formerly a much larger article concerned with the history of the company. This was removed by user:JamesBWatson on the 21st of July this year with the edit summary "Detailed account of every detail of the company's history is parochial and not notable". All this and previous minutiae removed from the article (detailed on the talk page) suggest to me that little or no encyclopaedic expansion is possible, and the few minutes I've spent on Google have backed up that impression.
The article implies there is detailed discussion of two of the companies products in the Microdata and Pick database articles, but in the first there are just a couple of passing mentions and in the second there is all that can be encyclopaedically said about the product (possibly more), and nothing of note about the company that could provide additional material for this article.
The fact that the company's Hemel Hempstead office was demolished following damage sustained in the 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire is not relevant to the company, and does not provide notability nor a reason for retaining the title as a redirect (either to that event or elsewhere) in my opinion.
I am also nominating:
Which are part of the same group apparently, and equally non-notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source he made his professional debut on 1.SNL and Serie A, fails WP:athlete. Matthew_hk tc 13:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking directly to AFD, looking at talk page no reason to Prod. Something created by an 8th grade teacher for her classroom is not notable. I could not find any reliable sources that discuss this diagram. A new name 2008 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Overall consensus here seems to hold that this topic is sufficiently notable, though I'd emphasise that sources are required. Some support for a merge/redirect to NIMBY definitely exists, but there is no consensus to enforce such a merge at this discussion. ~ mazca talk 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:VERIFY Nsaa (also nominated for deletion at no-wiki no:Wikipedia:Sletting/YIMBY) (talk) 13:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cottage. No references to it provided, none found in searches. Bongomatic 17:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article and related article OfficeSIP Messenger have been continuously added (without improvement) by users after being deleted as spam - new users appear after prior user had been warned and then blocked by admin User talk:Piseciffo for spamming activities. Calltech (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current version doesn't read as spam, and no actual argument has been made any argument for deletion. If you want it deleted, I suggest you comment on its notability rather than the person/people who created it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This comparison is being maintained as a consumer guide rather than an encyclopedia article, and is not encyclopedic in nature. None of the references actually compare the products in question; indeed, many of them are not directly comparable as they do not include the same components, and many of the rest differ very little except for in the specific version numbers of the bundled components. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only assertion of notability is a friendly with LASK. Fails WP:ATHLETE and possibly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youth caps aren't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE and not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Out of interest, which team does he play for Pontevedra or Wikki? Spiderone 12:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to redirect. Ikip (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me that this person meets the notability criteria. There are claims to notability, but I was not able to find independent coverage of these film awards in reliable sources.. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy . Ikip (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:Anna-Maria Galojan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. (1) Unsuccessful candidate to the Riigikogu, (2) Not a local figure (3) what coverage she has received almost entirely WP:ONEEVENT for a list of attractive female politicians. Challenged prod. Saalstin (talk) 10:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, article userfied to User:Reeshelen/Anna-Maria Galojan creator's userspace --Saalstin (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of why he is notable, fails WP:BIO and was previously speedily deleted as M. R. Makhdoom. I prodded a couple of days ago and tag was removed by anonymous editor. Paste Let’s have a chat. 09:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, probably made up one day Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article he has only played at youth and university level. Spiderone 08:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the page. Ikip (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no reliable sources for this bio. Gnews turns up two hits, and the Ghits seem to turn up fan sites, blogs, or other unreliable sources. The article isn't a speedy candidate, though. She may pass WP:BIO, but just barely - unless someone can find sources I am not seeing. ArcAngel (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced POV fork from Israel. Also nominating Israeli (nation). Suggest merge of any useful content. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 06:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is a strong consensus here that sufficient coverage in reliable sources have demonstrated notability.
I would strongly counsel the nominator not to follow up on the stated intention to take this to deletion review. In order for this debate to be closed as delete, I would have to disregard the strong consensus here, the even stronger consensus in the previous AfD, and the letter of the notability policy. I see no evidence that the majority of participants here are "too close to the topic", or that our normal standards should be disregarded. ~ mazca talk 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a local, nighttime radio show that aired for 18 months and averaged 1400 listeners.[1] It has since been canceled. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-->UPDATE | Since this AfD discussion has descended into personal attacks and, since in review of the contents of the first AfD discussion it appears the same thing occurred, I'm going to nominate this for Deletion Review so a non-involved party can make the decision to purge this article as it appears everyone here is too close to the topic (and, since I've been the subject of three four attacks, I'll include myself in that, as well). I'll leave the AfD open for a day or two more first but, in the interest of mitigating the down-spiral of civility here, will not be participating in additional discussion. Bluecanary99 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems silly. I came across this acronym only today and found the (brief) Wikipedia entry very useful. Why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.54.13.229 (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about likely non-notable individual. Article: 1) is an orphan, 2) is written like an ad, 3) lacks citations, and 4) lacks valid assertion of notability. Article creator's two edits include this article and IBF, to which (s)he added "Intranet Benchmarking Forum".
The companies that he is involved with apparently do not have Wikipedia articles. (Intranet Benchmarking Forum did have an article but it was deleted by the author admitting to it being an ad; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intranet Benchmarking Forum)
Likely self-promotion. scooteytalk 05:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the following facts from the nomination are not reasons for deletion: 1) (if it's an orphan, de-orphan it); 2) (if it's written like an ad, re-write it); 3) (if it's uncited, cite it); and 4) ("assertion of notability" is a CSD criterion and has nothing to do with AfD—at AfD all that matters is whether the subject is demonstrably notable. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether the subject says it's notable.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This stub is going to be next to impossible to verify, as this name is extremely common in the United States. One of the authors is going to have to take on the burden of proving notability and fixing this stub to WP:BLP standards. Currently, this is a mess. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have separate articles for the Australian involvement in Afghanistan (Operation Slipper) and Iraq (Australian contribution to the 2003 invasion of Iraq) as well as the campaign medals awarded for these two separate wars (Afghanistan Medal (Australia) and Iraq Medal (Australia)), so an article which combines veterans of both wars and the different campaign medals they're entitled to seems unnecessary and awkward. Nick-D (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MuZemike 22:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This game never actually went into development, they were just in the "pitching" stage. Theres been no news on it since September 2007.[47] Coasttocoast (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band may be notable, but the website itself isn't. Deserted Cities 04:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im not speculating Im saying that it is my opinion that almost everyone here that voted "Delete" is a Deletionist. How is that A bad thing?--Coldplay Expert 21:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look in not trying to sidetrack a debate, I too no not belive that this deserves an article but I do belive that something cam be taken out of this work.--Coldplay Expert 10:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that your right, there isnt really anything worth noteing on any other coldplay article. (Well maybe you can add something about Roadie #42 on the Viva la Vida era.)--Coldplay Expert 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Alexf(talk) 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The moniker of a community manager for a social gaming site. Apparently counts receiving a takedown notice from the GTA4 team as one of his criticisms. A google search failed to turn up any reliable sources (although did show plenty of forum and twitter posts). In general, fails WP:BIO: founding a gaming community and raising a few grant for charity doesn't necessarily confer notability. Bfigura (talk) 03:40, 12 September 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)) . |
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was close to tagging it for speedy/notability, but need opinions on this one since it's not really my area... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by another editor, so AFD'ing. Article has no third party sources or verification of notability. Mostly copy/pasted from public domain internal doctrine documents. Durova318 03:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy rename to Saxon River (no redirect) — this was the name the article would have been at if not for some undetected old vandalism to a redlink. Grutness...wha? 06:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Created by bot from list at List of rivers of New Zealand, but it seems to be a spurious entry to the list. the reference given doesn't list a Sarah River, and a google search for "Sarah+River" + Zealand - Wikipedia" turns up nothing other than mirrors of us and a woman called Sarah River. Grutness...wha? 03:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the article. Ikip (talk) 03:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. A google search, google books and google scholar search show no results for this topic. warrior4321 02:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References are dead links, links to fiction and primary sources. Article is largely in-universe. Article is also a strong example of WP:NONSENSE and WP:CB. Justification for removing prod "it's old" invalid. Simonm223 (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this video game company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. The most significant coverage of the Big Dogs MC is one story in the regional newspaper the Oakland Tribune from 2003 [49] or [50]. In the same year there was one story in Thunder Press [51] and one in Pinnacle News [52], which are small local newspapers or web sites only. These three articles, plus self-published material from http://www.bikerdogsmc.org, are all there is. Dbratland (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails notability. It might belong as a subtopic of Jesus bloodline. Google doesn't show anything related to this topic, unless you like seafood. Original article was about a possible Jesus bloodline. but that article doesn't mention anything either. Seems more original research than anything else. TParis00ap (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company with few relevant Google hits. Article's purpose appears to be promotional. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Zoids. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "Keep" by Judo112 was given significantly less weight per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLE NW (Talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to Crips. Ikip (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable gang. A localized set that fails WP:ORG. The larger gang passes notability, but this set does not. Article uses one reliable source that was less about why that set is notable than about just using a former member as an example. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear consensus that all mentions are of the trivial or unreliable sort. NW (Talk) 19:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable set of a gang. Attempts to establish notability by mentioning notable rappers who are allegedly members (might be a BLP issue there), but doesn't assert notability for the set itself. Passing mentions and trivial coverage, but lack of significant coverage in reliable sources lead to failing WP:ORG. Was AfD's in 2008 and was withdrawn when someone found a minor mention on Google Scholar and trivial mentions in gnews. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable; creator was unable to provide sources after request by RadioFan Gammablock (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High number of GHits, but mostly associated with Page Six type short blurbs. Probably best know for using high-end fashion models to sell exclusive properties in Manhattan and return of a lost expensive Rolex. No GNEWS of substance. CSD removed by SPA. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has exactly 23 google hits - 2 of those from Wikipedia. Other links refer to a book published on scribd and a website with the same name. The book author appears to be the creator of the article. noq (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Questionable notability, has an odor of original research. Crockspot (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title "CareerBall" was apparently coined by the article author for his book, which falls under the category of articles wrongly titled as neologisms. But even the article itself smacks of original research, and doesn't feel rightly encyclopedic. It wouldn't surprise me if it was copied directly from his book, and I don't think it's salvageable. • Anakin (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources establishing notability, and it is highly unlikely that any will be found for this short-lived local venue. There is (was) no particularly significant coverage in even the local media. The article appears to have been created by the owner, several years ago. Cúchullain t/c 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject is a book for which no reliable sources are provided and no assertion of notability is made in the article which meets the criteria of WP:NB. The title gets a large number of ghits but all the ones I looked at were either bookseller's advertising or were blogs and forums that had been spammed. After the first three or four pages of results I am now bored with trawling through them. It seems to me that this article is just one more item in an internet wide spamming fest for this book. Possibly there is an article in there, but the authors are going to need to identify the reliable sources first. SpinningSpark 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the general notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject, one of ten minor candidates in the 2009 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, does not seem to have any special notability indicated in the article. Several articles are linked to on the page, but only a couple of those seem relevant to the establishment of the subject's notability. The rest (Flickr photos of newspaper articles from the 1990s) seem only to go toward supporting the statement in the article that "his experiences fighting corruption lead [sic] to his political aspirations." Ultimately, this article fails WP:NN and WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product. Has only been used by one band, Disturbed (band), for and with whose guitarist the pedal was designed. No non-commercial third-party coverage has been made of this. It is a product which has no significance to music history, and as an effect there's nothing special about it. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league. Spiderone 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product line from a large manufacturer with its own page. All the important content from this article is already in the Danelectro article. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability made in the article as the league isn't professional. Spiderone 12:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. This link [54] implies that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't even professional. Spiderone 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no "clear" arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. Neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favor it. I think it outlines a growing trend, and just posted an article that contrasts the free vs. paid debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglesfan215 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Unforgettable (Selena). — Jake Wartenberg 15:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These albums are simply remastered releases of early Selena albums. I have attempted to merge and redirect the articles to the original album only to be reverted on more than one occasion. I still support a redirect of each. There are five volumes in all. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.The same has been done regarding Unforgettable: Limited Edition in redirecting to Unforgettable (Selena). MaJic (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 01:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy page.. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on WIkipedia. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This song was not released as a single, did not chart on any national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors, has not been performed independently by several notable artists, has no reliable sources, does not have enough material to warrant an article and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub article. Aspects (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This discussion was listed for 16 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Though an AFD tag for some reason was not placed on the article, the debate was sorted and was listed on the log for 13 days. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable and written like an ad. 120 million searches in five years, which amounts to less than 100,000 per day. Only other indication of notability is a "EuroPriSe" award, which doesn't seem to itself be notable (supranational government projects aren't automatically notable). May be salvageable if merged e.g. into an article about search privacy. NeonMerlin 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (NAR/Edel Music Italy). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sad, but a failure of WP:NOT#NEWS and a potential BLP nightmare. Ironholds (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some advocacy groups, such as the NAACP National Voter Fund, made an issue of this case during George W. Bush's presidential campaign in 2000. They accused Bush of implicit racism since, as governor of Texas, he opposed special hate crime legislation. Also, citing a prior commitment, Bush declined to appear at Byrd's funeral. Because two of the three murderers were sentenced to death and the third to life in prison (all charged with and convicted of capital murder, the highest felony level in Texas), Governor Bush maintained that "we don't need tougher laws". However, after Governor Rick Perry inherited the balance of Bush's unexpired term, the 77th Texas Legislature passed the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act on May 11, 2001.
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there is nothing that suggests that it might be notable. If reliable sources appear, please contact me, and I will be happy to undelete or userfy the article. NW (Talk) 19:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG; no coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources. Considering it's run by "people ages 12 to 18" I can't see that happening soon, no offence. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good software can in fact be developed by young people. You should not underestimate them. --Programble (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the page. Ikip (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per general notability guideline, this lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the source. I cannot find such sources. Also, reads like an advert/brochure. Non-notable software. Contested PROD. Chzz ► 00:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]