The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs deletion it has no reliable third person sources or notability. Fails criteria WP:NOTE, WP:SOURCE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC) *Note: Added missing AFD heading. --Canley (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to be some random guy just nominating for the sake of deletion but there are too wikipedia articles martial arts related articles or non martial art articles that don't use reliable third person sources to demonstrate noteworthiness. Such as Amateur Martial Association,World Shorinji Kempo Organization,PERSILAT,Commonwealth Taekwondo Union. I was gonna say if it was so notable then fix it since there is more than sufficient sources can be used to prove its noteworthy it should be added to the main article. Surely the previous poster can agree if someone is gonna create an article that it should provide sources that aren't solely primary and are independent of the subject this article IMO was not.
Dwanyewest (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and improve article. Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NN free software partitioner. No refs to be found Ipatrol (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranish Partition Manager is a free software program for managing partitions on a hard drive. It is generally recommended by some computer professionals as a good alternative to commercial partition managers such as ..., as well as other free partition managers including ..., because of its easier-to-use, menu-driven command line interface, ability to simulate all changes to the disk to verify the likely success of the changes, and correct handling of many partition formats.%INSERT <ref> TAGS HERE% Ranish Partition Manager has been recommended for mostly advanced users. Unlike some other partition managers, it allows the user to edit the extended boot records, clone entire partitions, and view the cylinder-head-sector geometry of up to 32 partitions on a drive.%INSERT MORE <ref> TAGS HERE%
Ranish Partition Manager is included with SystemRescueCD.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability. Would be a speedy, but doesn't apply to places. PhilKnight (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable John 22:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear how this might meet WP:BIO, none of the Google news hits appear to be about this actress. Article lacks references. Withdrawn, thanks to DES for the New York Times and Variety references RadioFan (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:
1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
--RadioFan (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not introduce significant coverage in reliable sources; only introduces ONE, which is undoubtedly very insufficient. In addition, it provides no source for its main assertion of critical reception: having received mixed reviews. Fleet Command (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable actor Ipatrol (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Contested prod. Absolutely zero notability. Presumably a track from a mixtape by Drake. Only thing from a Google search I got were a few sites with lyrics, to download the mp3, and youtube videos. All that shows is that the song exists. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Most songs[note 5] do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
The lack of detail in the article and the absence of significant coverage in non-trivial sources indicates that this song falls into the "most" mentioned above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of only 2,000 Google results, I could find no independant coverage on this; most of the results were created by the creator of the subject. Ipatrol (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
El Castillo de Hater wasn't published yesterday, but I corrected a spelling mistake. Take a look at the other guys' posts date. And about google entries... What can I say, that you can't find much about it doesn't mean it isn't true. If you want another verification about the relation between name and subject you can take a look at the description on the Hiridia Total War Trailer, I think my name is included there... You can find it typing 'hiridia' on youtube, or directly on google, it's one of the first results.
About the crystal ball. I understand it, but I never said in wikipedia there will be a book, just that I'm working on one, which is totally true. There was crystalball syndrome on that forum you entered but the text I wrote here is neat and correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RevanShan (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non editable sources... lol Everything on the internet is editable. From that statement, well... I could only post anything in here if it's printed. Once again I would like to remember that there was no 'about to be', it's all true info. But let me tell you another thing too.
Some people come to me and tell me how great is all what I've made. That all that stuff about Hiridia appears on the internet, and even on images and video. But I want them to have some place were they can actually have some clear and resumed info, out of any sort of forum or even official webpage. It would be awesome if people could find about this with only taking a look at wikipedia. I'm sure they've already searched here, and that they wouldn't be that surprised if they saw an entry with the title of Hiridia-Wikipedia in the Google search results. RevanShan (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the gap between non-notability and notability, there's always aboutus and LinkedIn. They're free, so far as I know, but as they contain rather subjective material, they're no good as references here. They will get your message to the fans and the curious. Peridon (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod for a very basic article on a hosting application. There are many Ghits, but most entries seem to be blogs and forums or generated by the application itself. Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. One member went on to later join a notable band but that does not confer notability onto this band. I would recommend merging any verifiable content from reliable sources into Wednesday 13's article but this article has no sources (and little content). TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional character with no evidence or assertion of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax. NW (Talk) 21:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax to me. Unsourced, created by an editor with a history of dubious additions and changes. —Kww(talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The player may exist, but no source to support it. Match Report of AFC Cup 2007 & 08 can't find him. Matthew_hk tc 04:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. In addition to overriding delete consensus, not seeing here significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable corporate employee. Sources are all about Unilever and its brands, or are from Mr. Leijense himself (clearly not RS to make extraordinary claims nor to establish notability). No significant coverage of this man himself. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Prod removed by article creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag and explained on the talk page why- i find it highly annoying to see that the tag has been added again whilst I am still in the middle of adding to the article, and with no response to the issues i raised on the talk page. As i said on the article's talk page: Somebody proposed to delete this with the reason 'Unnotable corporate employee. Sources are all about Unilever and its brands, or are from My Leijense himself (clearly not RS to make extraordinary claims nor to establihs notability). No significant coverage of this man as a person.'
That seems strange to me- the sources are reputable, including a leading Newspaper, two radio programmes and a TV documentary. A quick Google will confirm this. None of the sources are from Unilever or the man himself.
It is obvious that the sources relate to his work-as would the sources for most other business people (say, Steve Jobs- most articles mentioning his name would be related to Apple).
I am not saying this man is as famous as Steve Jobs- but he meets the requirements for notability so why not include this short article in Wikipedia? Feahl08 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is no evidence whatsoever that the person has "notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one"; and
2. He has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."
So what about the general notability provisions? This would require "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Clearly this is not the case. There are a handful of news articles, all of which merely quote him as a company spokesperson. This is neither significant coverage nor, more importantlt, coverage about the subject. When the subject is quoted talking about the company, it is, by definition, coverage of the company and not the subject. So, taking that into consideration, we actually have no coverage of the person at all. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:Notability (films) Dlabtot (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by Athaenara (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK of 2010_Haiti_earthquake_conspiracy_theories#Accusations of organ harvesting by Israeli medical teams. The "Development" section was copied directly from there without attribution. The Jenny Tonge section is covered in Jenny Tonge. This doesn't warrant a seperate article. Pontificalibus (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the talk page of the article. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL. iBen 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination after proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Article was previously deleted with concerns over the band's notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. RadioFan (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to assert WP:BIO or WP:PROF - and just seems like self-promotion. A previous decision about this prof (with a slightly different article name) has been made here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_M._Kaplan - Addionne (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Tbsdy lives (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Known only for a single event, does not pass notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list of complete and utter original research. I've never heard of a "phoenix club" and the definition that the creator has dreamt up seems to make no sense (I fail to see how a team created in protest can be a "phoenix club") -- BigDom 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep Well, Ok maybe pheonix club is a bit of an obscure name for the page, perhaps a rename and/or split would be better than deletion as I thinks it fits Ok under the List category it was intended for like List of stadium stands by capacity or List of rugby union stadiums by capacity. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
:I think it would be best if this was just split into List of revival clubs and List of protest clubs as it's not a complete rubbish page, it's really under the wrong title and contains 2 conflicting elements The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actress who does not meet the basic notability requirements. No significant coverage beyond lists of her screen appearances. Pichpich (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Largely promotional article of a subject which lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn on the condition that the article is returned to userspace until issues fixed. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. No significant independent coverage, and two of the award nominations listed were for the films rather the person. Epbr123 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urge withdrawl. The references as they stand are not sufficient to cover claims in the article, and it's laughable to claim that using some particular template guarantees immunity from sourcing objections, especially on a topic where there have been ongoing tensions about BLP implications. Having said that, seven minutes is too soon to nominate for deletion; the correct approach is to urge the article creator to keep the page out of mainspace until sourcing is impeccable, and nominate only if it returns to mainspace in such a state, or the creator refuses to userfy. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:Notability_(films) Dlabtot (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet the WP:GNG with reviews from DVD Verdict, DVDtalk and metroactive. The first two were confirmed at the RS noticeboard, and metroactive appears to be carrying reviews from newspapers in the Bay Area. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Beyond all the preceeding discussion, the film has had broad festival release [51] and attention from the Online Film Critics Society [52] which is hosted by Rotten Tomatoes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by User:Bwilkins, "A7: No indication that the article may meet the guidelines for inclusion." Non-admin closure. — Glenfarclas (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly autobiographical article, no refs, not particularly notable. Hiroe (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable software: no refs, only links to the software's own page and an article by its creator. non-encyclopaedic Content largely copied from software's own page, and COI concerns as main contributor seems to be software's author. But primarily no evidence of notability. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such devices exist, but the name appears to be a neologism - Gnews found almost nothing on it. The original version may have been created as spam. PROD removed by IP w/o explanation. RayTalk 16:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. as copyvio (G12) —SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
inappropriate personal log. Please SNOW this. Ipatrol (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination. This article was originally deleted via AfD in 2007. Whilst in many ways it's very similar to that version, this version does at least have some sources, which makes it sufficiently different for me to decline the G4 speedy deletion request. Bringing to AfD for community consensus. GedUK 16:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn Good rescue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed under strange circumstances. An established editor (here since 2007) who rarely edits actors' articles removed the PROD without comment.
No non-trivial sources found, all roles are minor characters; fails WP:RS, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page is autobiographical article about non-notable user. Hiroe (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to? Well... okay. Section #1 is not really a "fringe theory", as the belief that AGW influences extreme weather is actually quite well supported. Section #2 mostly cites right-wing demagogues and one instance of comedy to cover the theory that "God did it because of <something I don't like>" (mostly Iraq, Israel, and/or abortion), and the rebuttals are unsourced. Section #3 (and, in fact, Section #2 too) is mostly unsourced and covers theories that did not gain coverage in reliable sources, and thus shouldn't be on Wikipedia. And, fundamentally, Wikipedia should not cover marginally-held conspiracy theories about natural phenomena as it seriously embarrasses the encyclopedia. Sceptre (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing nomination by IP. Rationale was "No indication of notability - grammar schools are not inherently notable." – User:76.102.12.35. I am neutral. Jujutacular T · C 16:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a made-up sport with no independent coverage. Ipatrol (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable can not find any sources for the organization. I can find lots of people who list being a member of the organization but nothing about the group itself. Ridernyc (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ENTERTAINER. No reliable sources support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 14:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and and I can't find any information on this at all. Ridernyc (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Considerable coverage in his local paper is not significant coverage as required. JodyB talk 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable politician from County Kildare in Ireland. Fails WP:Politician. Possible WP:COI and self promotion issues. Snappy (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. More sources need to be added but what we have seems sufficient to keep for now. It;'s just over a week old so more should be coming soon. JodyB talk 17:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod. I'm not seeing how this might meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources (Google news, and book searchs bring up nothing on the name, web search brings up other wikis and what appear to be primary promotional sources). Notability of awards unclear as only one of the film festivals has Wikipedia articles and it has reference issues as well. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable politician. Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local politician. Fails WP:Politician Snappy (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic WP:NAD (though some of its content may be used on Wiktionary). In any case it requires a massive reorganization. Tcp-ip (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) being about: WP: a thing [...] that their title can denote vs. WD: the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. Descriptions of testicles and nonsense are in the respective articles. This page contains etymology, history and usage notes.
2) synonyms: WP: duplicate articles that should be merged vs. WD: different articles. Bollocks, Bullshit, and nonsense are synonyms and have different articles. The same is true for bollocks and testicles.
3)N/A
4)homographs: WP: different articles vs. WD: one entry. the page is both about the usage in the meaning of testicles and in the meaning of nonsense. It also includes several idiomatic phrases.
According to this policy I am for deleting the article and using some of its material to improve the namesake Wiktionary article. Note that this wouldn't mean, as some said,"throwing away the most comprehensive reference about bollocks", but just placing it in the right place. some argued that the page should be kept because it is more than a dictionary entry, but the aforementioned WP:NAD answers: "Note that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. A full dictionary article (as opposed to a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from) or encyclopedic dictionary entry would contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; and can be very long indeed. Short dictionary articles are artifacts of paper dictionaries being space-limited. Not all dictionaries are limited by the size of the paper. Wiktionary is not paper either."
The court cases may be considered for their own articles. We could consider leaving a disambiguation page, something like: "B. may mean testicles or nonsense. See also court cases' pages. Wiktionary has more about it".
This argument may apply also to other articles about words. Two have cited "bullshit" as example and perhaps it should be deleted. That article is sightly better (i.e. point 4 doesn't apply and point 1 applies to a lesser extent), though.
Of course, I have only argued that the article breaks the WP:NAD policy. If you really insist for keeping the page on Wikipedia, you should ask for a change in that policy. This would require providing a rationale for having articles about words in Wikipedia and defining notability guidelines. When does the history of a word become interesting enough? Most words have long histories. If words' histories are notable, English Wikipedia should have articles also about the words of all thousands of languages and this would result in millions more articles. Is this good for Wikipedia? I would say that it's better to keep this (interesting) task to Wiktionary. Tcp-ip (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Old article. Book does not seem to have published. JodyB talk 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its tone is (very) inappropiate, it lacks sources, and it probably isn't even published yet. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 13:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this may be a hoax as the article was created by GraemeHerbert (talk · contribs), the same person as the CEO and founder. Also the article was created in 2009 but indicates that the airline was founded in 2005. I don't believe that almost four years later the airline was not in operation. These two versions of his user page are interesting. I was unable to find anything in Google, not always a good indication but useful, and the given external link, http://www.jetcanada.ca/, did not work when I tried it. At best it seems to be a nonexistent airline or failed attempt. Either way it should be deleted. something lame from CBW 12:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Appears a neologism and most likely an attemot at advertising. Therefore, until solid sourcing can be brought in, it is deleted. JodyB talk 17:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Get a total of 75 hits on google for this term, every place else I have tried I can find nothing. Ridernyc (talk) 12:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this article, it seems like a fairly routine murder of a relative by a relative (as routine as that can be). A brief search of Google news archives found little to no coverage outside of the local area [60]. AniMate 12:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per references provided during the discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While this work certainly existed and published articles, some of which have been cited or referred to on rare occasion, there is a lack of reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in any depth. It was a short-lived, pseudo-academic periodical with little impact, reach, or significance. Moreover, I am concerned that this article was substantially written by blocked pedophilia advocates, and was even edited by the journal's founder/editor. Dominic·t 10:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unreferenced and near-nonsensical machine-translation from an unreferenced article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish dialect. It has now remained in its current state for nearly ten days. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, but I think we should give the original "author" (in this case the person who ran the Swedish text through Google Translate), Fågelfors-Glen a chance to re-translate and re-research the subject and move the whole page to User:Fågelfors-Glen/Västgötska. Hegvald (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article suffers from the additional problem that there is absolutely no way to know the validity of the content, as even the original from which it was translated is completely unreferenced. It could be based on dialectological scholarship (but in that case, why no references?). But it may just as likely be based on someone's private recollections of the quaint speech of the picturesque peasants in the place where he spent his childhood summers, which I believe would be problematic in view of the policy on original research. --Hegvald (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To Glen: If you are interested in working on the topic, I would suggest getting yourself to the nearest university library and looking at what they have about Swedish dialects. Look at a few of the most recent works and check what they refer to as older standard works on the subject. Then use these works (both the newer and the older but not completely outdated ones) to write an article. I think you will find that this will give more satisfaction and that you will learn more from the experience than just running things through Google Translate. You should probably begin by checking the website (dialect department) of the Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore and perhaps contact them for some tips. --Hegvald (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with no delete vote standing. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a near-nonsensical machine-translation from an article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish admiral. It has now remained in nearly its original state for a month. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, and credit for starting the page should be given to whoever eventually makes half an effort to write an article, rather than just taking a foreign article and running it through Google Translate. There are enough people who read Swedish and write decent English around for someone to write a proper article eventually. However, rather than completely erasing it, I would suggest moving this to User:Waase/Cornelius Anckarstierna in order to encourage the user who posted it to continue working on it and repost it in a non-gibberish version. --Hegvald (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn after User:Theleftorium's rewrite of the article. Hegvald (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a near-nonsensical machine-translation from an article in the Swedish Wikipedia about a Swedish admiral. It has now remained in nearly its original state for several months. In my view this type of contribution should be discouraged, and credit for starting the page should be given to whoever eventually makes half an effort to write an article, rather than just taking a foreign article and running it through Google Translate. There are enough people who read Swedish and write decent English around for someone to write a proper article eventually. However, rather than completely erasing it, I would suggest moving this to User:Waase/Olof Strömstierna in order to encourage the user who posted it to continue working on it and repost it in a non-gibberish version. --Hegvald (talk) 08:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete as G10 Attack Page for Trapo (disambiguation) - disambiguating living persons via a perjorative term - and as a G3 Vandalism for Trapo - inflammatory redirect. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this might be some sort of attack page but I'm not sure. I can't find any reference to "Trapo" in these pages, and there's no apparent connection. The creator's username is also suspicious, and given that an editor with no other edits is creating a disambig page with the proper format and tags, I'm suspicious. But assuming good faith, I'm taking it here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, no citations as to importance Brianhe (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Most contributors believe that the sourcing is still insufficient for the subject to escape crystal ball status. Sandstein 07:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable "untitled" work that hasn't even been started yet. Purely a rumor mill with three sourced sentences that do not show any notability to this purported, non-existent work. Not even a worthy redirect title. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable software, and the article is plagued with WP:OR, rather hard to remove or fix given the lack of reliable sources addressing the issues. The google books and news archive articles only have passing mentions of this software, so it fails WP:GNG in that regard. Pcap ping 05:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The article author's promise of a marketing campaign arouses a suspicion that this article is intended as part of it; but in any case, a future marketing campaign and a single reference in a local paper do not establishe notability to the standard of WP:BK. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks any references to 3rd party sources. The only Google hits I'm finding are to book sale sites. RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not encyclopedic. At best a list of dictdefs, many of them neologisms. See WP:NOT#DICT. Also the page title is incorrect. Demonym refers to a place name, not a usage name. "Essayist" (one who writes essays) is not a Demonym, and therefore neither is, say "APLer" (one who uses APL) -- a term i can testify is long established in the APL community. DES (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC) DES (talk) 04:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website advertising for-profit educational institutions 2 says you, says two 03:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. Do we really need to have an article about a fictional high school which does little more than list the years that the show's characters attended? After Midnight 0001 03:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to failure to find multiple reliable sources which can verify enough information to meet any of the notability requirements. The sources provided here are either not reliable, not significant covereage, or neither reliable nor significant coverage. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable stand-up comedian whose claim to fame is finishing in eleventh place in a little-watched reality-tv show about stand-up comedians that has yet to launch a single career. Unsourced BLP. THF (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: (but needs expanding ) not alot of details in this artilce, but I believe anyone that is listed/credited in the IMDB is of note. not everyone is a george washington or a bruce willis, but there are less known ppl who are also of note, perhaps not on a global scale like lord lister and his germs, but on a more local scale. Esther ku is extremely well known in the comedy circles here in new york city, but the nature of standup comedy is that you play to an audience of 100, and for a brief 5 or 10 minute stage time.. its hard to be really get famous doing that, getting on last comic standing is a great achievement. like I said, rodney dangerfield deserves to be in ANY encyclopedia.. but wikipedia is for the people, so inclusion of a comic lesser than eddie murphy or dave chapelle should remain in wiki. after all, I really think she will get bigger and bigger so eventually this artile has to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miscusi (talk • contribs) 05:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional coverage, 30-minute NPR interview of Ku and Richard Lewis (comedian): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91922566 TJRC (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced how-to of an apparent neologism. Was already deleted via PROD once, so sending to AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The assertion that the term "black" in an Australian context uniquely describes sub-Saharan Africans is a ridiculous claim and undermines the entire basis of the article. Digestible (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, original research. While Garland herself is notable, there has been little-to-no work in English, in reliable sources, that has taken any interest in her genealogy. The ancestry portion, when referenced, is only documenting generic facts about specific ancestors, and not the connection to Garland, and the synthesis and application of this to Garland would be OR by SYNTH. The self-identification portion might have salvageable material for the main Judy Garland page, but does not merit a page of its own. Agricolae (talk) 02:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable martial artist User234 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable martial art User234 (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable open source software. No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Google has less than 600 hits to oitg and most of them are to other organisations. Contested prod. noq (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, no refs, notability? iBen 02:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability RadManCF (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:BOLD (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 21:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP. Has been unreferenced since December 2004. That's over six years. PeterbrownDancin (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of foreign language (Finnish) numbers. I believe WP:NUMBER applies, although perhaps it is less about the actual numbers than a language-based article. In any case the article does not in any way meet the notability for lists of numbers under WP:NUMBER, which restricts notability to just two lists. If this is simply a language article, it is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not an online language course Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
**Response. You haven't provided a reason why it should stay. May I ask why you think so? Didn't see your "as per". Sorry! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a concensus to retain the article. Can the AfD now be formally withdrawn?--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable enough character outside the series. ~ ς ح д r خ є ~ 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The single Irish Times review does not show "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" , as is eloquently explained by Wikipeterproject Kevin (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Promotional article for a HR startup that's seeking publicity by producing a list of the worst bosses in the world. Nice idea, if a bit grandiose, but the first list was only in December 2009 and the world is not leaping up and down with excitement. It seems to have lots of ghits but when you take away twitter, facebook, blogs and all the rest there are very few that are relevant (see here). Fails WP:SPAM, WP:N andy (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input, but the mainstream media (e.g. reliable sources) seems to have been leaping up and down with excitement about this newsworthy item, despite the fact that the 2009 list was the organization's first. This is probably due to the fact that this list made history by being the first list ever to actually name the "worst bosses" in a serious and professional manner.
The following is a list of reliable sources ("mainstream news organizations") that have covered and featured The Worst Bosses List and that relate directly to the subject of the article:
KOVR CBS 13 News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KOVR) http://cbs13.com/video/?id=64758@kovr.dayport.com
KMGH ABC 7 News (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KMGH-TV) http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21966233/detail.html
Tulsa World (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_World) http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=46&articleid=20091213_46_E1_Youmig111919
The Oakland Tribune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oakland_Tribune) http://www.insidebayarea.com/oakland/ci_13954503
KCRA-TV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCRA_3) http://www.kcra.com/news/21914330/detail.html
KGO AM 810 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGO_(AM)) http://www.kgoam810.com/Article.asp?id=1620682&spid=20399
KFBK AM 1530 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KFBK) http://www.kfbk.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=172730&article=6457286
Abbashele (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability of the network. Citations are to primary sources directly connected with the network, or to third party IRC information site that do not establish notability. As far as IRC networks go, Byxnet is tiny. While this alone is not reason for deletion, it is evidence of lack of importance. Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no content other than infobox. RadManCF (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:WEB. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet notability guidelines. All of the sources are primary, written by members of the group. It's been tagged for cleanup for some time, with no effort by interested parties to bring it up to standards with verifiable, secondary sources. Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Miss Earth Florida. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After cleanup, it has become clear to me that this person does not warrant her own article. The only hit in Google News is an article from 2007 in the Miami Herald, long before the pageant. All the references in the article (study the history to see previous incomplete and unreliable references--incl. those to the pageant company, which aren't reliable and don't help establish notability) are of highly questionable authority. Now, the pageant itself is under discussion at AfD, and it's leaning toward a redirect--in other words, I don't see any notability being inherited here, since her one claim to fame is about to lose its independently notable status. In short, I submit that her title is not enough to qualify her, and that there is not enough reliable coverage of her (click here to see her--but she don't look like her)--I can't even verify that she graduated from FIU, or that she was born when the article says she was born. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO.
The only thing that could be notable about Dr. Kausar Mahmood is that he is a dental surgeon at Margalla Institute of Health Sciences [97]. Other than that, Dr. Mahmood himself has said that poetry is one of his hobbies [98].
Dr. Mahmood does not meet the biography criterion for either his work as a dental surgeon (no secondary coverage, no notable award, has not originated "a significant new concept, theory or technique", etc.) or his works in poetry [99] (same reasons). « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a musician with no reliable sources to support verifiability or establish notability. I am unable to find any substantial writeup of the artist. There are mentions such as [100], and [101]. He has performed based on info like [102], and his album was advertised [103]. But there's nothing written about him. And nothing that cane verify most of this article. Whpq (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and indiscriminate list of characters. Except for two of them, they have don't even have links here. The two that are linked, have no articles: a dab and a link to a video game. Pcap ping 13:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable entrepreneur; article by single-issue user. Sources given are not about this person, but about the company he founded. I have been unable to find any significant coverage of this person. Haakon (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an advertisement for his company "Roofray". Though he one top 100 websites from Entrepreneur Magazine, I'm really not sure that this is enough to determine notability. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly has 31 tracks in a 50 minute album. But fails WP:NALBUMS. No evidence that the release charted anywhere found at Allmusic or Billboard. No evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. Article references a one paragraph review and the bands own website as the only sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable website, trivial mention in the Times Higher Education Supplement doesn't establish notability, and a search - a bit difficult given Wittgenstein :-) - turns up virtually nothing, ie I found one mention on a list of websites. [104]. Dougweller (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep But suit yourselves! Yes, it was this wiki that highlighted the glaciation fraud first. See: http://www.philosophical-investigations.org/Himalayas
and
"2009-12-20 03:39:09 Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting
[WWW]http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist at the University of Nebraska.
Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat. Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt. “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60 years.”
Other researchers and noted experts have raised their voices in support of Raina's conclusions. According to Himalayan glacier specialist John “Jack” Shroder, the only possible conclusion is that IPCC's Himalaya assessment got it “horribly wrong.” The University of Nebraska researcher adds, “They were too quick to jump to conclusions on too little data —PerigGouanvic"
These deletionists are part of the 'Global Warming users group'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemtpm (talk • contribs) 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to fail GNG, and WP:NOT. RadManCF (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NOTDIR Criteria, no sources, when checking sources: google shows nothing when you filter out all the blogs, directories, facebook, etc. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Written like an essay, and seems to be promotional. Also tagged for COI concerns. RadManCF (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No arguments made that refute the nomination. Kevin (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No references. I cannot find any ghits for this person as a journalist or presenter. Contested PROD. Clubmarx (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a personal trainer, actor, author, who has dated a famous person. I don't believe he meets any of the criteria in WP:BIO:
So I don't believe that all of the above, when taken as a whole, shows that he's at all notable. Pretty much the only decently-refed thing about him is that he dated Sheridan, which is already in her article.
Note that the article was created by now-blocked user:Judo112, a sock of another account with a poor track record on BLPs. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable artist Rapido (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copy-pasted fork of Roger Federer career statistics. I don't know if there's some consensus on whether this type of forking is appropriate, but it seems excessive. The information's duplicated in the career stats article, and I don't think that article's suffering from size problems, especially given how well it's organized. I worry about the idea of split off stats for every tournament. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I created the new article for the statistics because the original one was way too large. So the idea was to split it, i.e. the statistics of the Grand Slams on one side and then the others. It sill needs a lot of work, but is a start. The table of all the matches of Federer in Grand Slams is too big to be included in the original statistics article. That is why I removed it from that article to create a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanguito Wiki (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Hussar. Or to another appropriate article. Sandstein 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article discusses the development of hussars in the mediaeval Serbian military. With no reliable sources (one of the two references is self-published, and the other is a wargaming website) there's nothing in this article that belongs in Wikipedia. Under normal conditions, I'd simply redirect this to "hussar", but it's an unlikely redirect — substituting "G" for "H" is likely the result of transliteration between the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets [q.v. the Russian article on ru:О. Генри, which transliterates to "O. Genry" rather than O. Henry] and thus not likely to be a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Already two delete votes, so the second relist was not necessary JForget 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find significant independent coverage for this software. Deleted as prod but restored as contested without adding any sources. Pcap ping 15:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely unsourced blp (i don't see a link to a primary source website as a reliable source at all) without an assertion of notability even on a video game musician. Part of an extensive walled garden of similiar unsourced blps. Was deprodded by an ip who couldn't demonstrate notability or reliably source it either. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pure hoax. POV pushing and vandalism about an non-existent community. Ezhavahy is just an alternative name of Ezhava, a Dalit caste.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's a minor DJ, a former tambourine player in a minor band, and a 'friend to the stars', but he doesn't seem to be notable. Some IP editors have left notes on the talk page calling for deletion. He's got a tiny amount of coverage, e.g. [110]. I couldn't find what amounts to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, he's mostly the subject of informal blog and twitter chat. Fences&Windows 03:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a popular discussion. Someone? Anyone? Fences&Windows 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This software client does not present any sources that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A heart-warming tale, but one article in The Age does not notability make. And other than that article, I didn't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]