The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. a non notable local councillor. only a bit of third party coverage. [1] LibStar (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY - term isn't notable enough on its own to merit an article separate from Soul patch. If anything, redirect there. Also, borderline WP:CSD#A10 since they're synonyms. XXX antiuser eh? 23:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Phantomsteve as copyvio. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Woogee (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The keep !vote didn't explain why notability might exist within the meaning of our policies, however, I am willing to usrfy or undelete (w/ proper sourcing) on request. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC: no physical sales; no evidence of notability (or even charting) for download-only single; no WP:RS coverage Closeapple (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a non-notable living person. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Doesn't really meet my idea of notability, but it's not about my idea - it's about consensus, and it's lacking here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable session guitarist, no sources assert individual notability. Article was unfortunately de-prodded with an addition of an allmusic.com, which is insufficient. Overall, a failure of WP:MUSICBIO Tarc (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki as a hoax. JamieS93❤ 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't quite know where to start with this. Is it about a "Hannah Montana 4" CD, or an episode of the tv programme called "Miley Says Goodbye?" ? It looks like both. It's unreferenced, and full of original research. It claims HM will be followed by a show called Brodie Pasten but the article about that has been deleted as a hoax, so this article is suspect too. I42 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Although I can't say I quite understand the two olfactory comments, even without them there's a consensus that this doesn't meet notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable amateur cricket club. wjematherbigissue 21:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. As always, I'm happy to userfy, especially if reliable sourcing appears. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2009 it is currently in trials"? Non-notable secret weapon that may or may not exist Orange Mike | Talk 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CREATIVE. Extremely minor journalist/author with no evidence of notability, and no third-party sources at all. Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. None but the nominator opined in favor of deletion (or merger). Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I struck through the above after Verbal, the nominator, brought to my attention that it's incorrect to state that only the nominator favored merger. So, I will simply indicate that that no one except the nominator favored deletion, and that while a plurality including the nom favored merger, the overall rough consensus was to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant due to Index of life extension-related articles and List of life extension-related topics (should redirect here perhaps), not to mention Life extension categories and the Life extension article itself. A WP:CFORK which is simply a poor duplicate - the Life extension article with all the information removed. Verbal chat 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software product. ((prod)) denied by author. References are all to software download sites, not to legitimate software journals. Borders on spam. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-notable software product" - Please use a Notability Template to help establish this article notability rather than trash the article altogether.
"((prod)) denied by author" - I heavily expanded the article when I removed the ((prod)) tag. I assumed that is was no longer the case to use the ((prod)) tag.
"References are all to software download sites, not to legitimate software journals" - This is a closed-source shareware windows-only desktop application thus "software download sites" are the main places where you find these kind of software so it's only natural to have references to these sites. Although there are 500k+ google results for "DJ ToneXpress" I tried to add references to the most notable ones (like Cnet's Download.com where the software has an Editor's review). "legitimate software journals" that you are referring to, usually praise open-source/free software and, following your logic, this means that only open-source software deserve a page on Wikipedia.
"Borders on spam" - I disagree with this. I tried to write this article without praising the software and without asking people to buy it. Please edit any part of the article and remove the content you find offending/spam GeluKelu (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. No progress at this article since PROD just two years ago. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 and, secondarily, G11. No assertion of significance or importance of the subject, and the article appears to be written to promote the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO. References available are:
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Search as I might, I am unable to find non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications on this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malls in general are non-notable, even malls in or near small towns. Do we want thousands of wikipedia articles on every mall in America? Montanabw(talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Kudos to the participants in the discussion for level headed comments. I wish all were like this. There seems to be sufficient reason to either keep or delete. That being the case there is no clear consensus as there is no clear policy issue involved. No consensus defaults to KEEP. JodyB talk 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article is non-notable as he has not appeared in recognised first-class or List A cricket as required by WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. He has represented his country, but not at the highest international level of the sport. Johnlp (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971
b. Are between:
Harrias (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: WP:CRIN states that, in order to be notable, a player must have "appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". It then goes on to define major cricket as including "any player or umpire who has appeared in ... a limited overs international ... since 1971". At no point does it say that this limited overs international has to be a full ODI. So the questions are, 1) has this player played in an international? and, 2) was this international of the limited overs variety? The answer to both of these questions is yes, therefore he meets the major cricket qualification and therefore he meets WP:CRIN. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spotted this article when bumbling around. Unreferenced article on the site. Google search turns up that they apparently existed at one time, as per some lyrics sites which have some work of theirs. Unfortunately, a Google News search turned up nothing of note. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a self-designated "celebrity" writer; miserable sourcing, long history of edits by an account claiming to be the subject himself, general mess. Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IP user claiming to be the subject has requested deletion on the talk page. I have instructed him to email the Foundation to verify that he is who he says he is. Notwithstanding that, I am not entirely convinced this individual meets WP:MUSICBIO. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appears that one of his films was once shown at the Pompidou, but I can't verify exactly what the book says because it's only snippet view in Google Books. This doesn't seem to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Not anything significant in Google News, as far as I can see. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few, a very few, references available, but it has, at best, borderline notability. This is one of the articles for the community to decide. I may have nominated it, but I wish to be seen as neutral in this one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This stub is essentially a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources that match the current content are sparse. "Technological osmosis" gets 102 unique Google hits, doesn't show up in Google News, and none of the hits in Google Scholar indicate that its use as a turn of phrase (with variable meaning and context) is based on this being a notable concept. — Scientizzle 16:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
neologism and attack term, not supported by any of the cited sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without the presentation of reliable sources that use and define the term sufficiently for an encyclopedia article, it doesn't belong. — Scientizzle 16:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term.
The result was speedy delete G4 as blatant recreation of deleted material. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Avril Lavigne Album, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It's Not Over (Avril Lavigne album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avril Lavigne's 4th Album – clearly an attempt to shirk the deletion process. Also salted to prevent recreation, if that helps any. –MuZemike 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased album lacking significant coverage in 3rd party sources much less a confirmed title or tracklist. See Wikipedia:TenPoundHammer's Law RadioFan (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon. No secondary sources yet. Twitter should never be linked to. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand deleting the release date, but deleting the whole article seems drastic. The existence of the two singles is verifiable, it should suffice as proof that if nothing else they are working on an album. -Anonymous 15:27, 26 February 2010
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This unreleased single, part of an album which is also unreleased (Uni-5: The World's Enemy), appears to fail the notability requirements for individual songs. –Grondemar 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus and the addition of references to the article. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionary definition. Unreferenced since AUGUST. FREAKING. 2007. Obviously nobody cares. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any specific information about this chart: how it's tabulated, who's in charge of it, et cetera. Much like the United World Chart, this chart seems to be made by mystery men. Surprisingly, there are only two hits in all of GNews for it, both mentioning only that a song went so high on the chart. The fact that there is no information that explicitly tells the history of a 30-year-old music chart is very, very telling. It therefore fails WP:GNG for lack of non-trivial coverage. If the media can't even be bothered to recognize this chart, then it most certainly must not be notable.
Note: There are a whole bunch of subpages associated with this, all of which are listed at Template:ARCTop40hits and are tagged for AFD here:
There are also List of number-one hits on the ARC Weekly Top 40 Chart (United States) and List of artists who reached number one on the ARC Weekly Top 40 (U.S.), as well as associated categories and a template. I will get to those as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as G3 by User:NawlinWiki. —SpacemanSpiff 18:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax article and attempt to create a neologism. Creator has a history of adding questionable material to articles, often with fake references. This article was previously prodded and deleted, but this was later challenged. No non-mirror hits that I could find for this term, and I can't find any listing for the book in the references. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. COI and promotional intent are not themselves reasons to delete, but they make us look particularly for the independent comment which is required as evidence of notability, and the consensus to delete is because that is not found. JohnCD (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, no signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, evident WP:Conflict of interest by creator. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Any content that can be sourced can be merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All other minor characters in the C.O.P.S. series who have their own articles are currently up for AfD - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Crimefighter, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addictem, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey O'Malley. As this article looks pretty much identical to the others, I think this should be considered along with them for consistency. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del>
— per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal tips on feeding geckos - what is on New Caledonian Crested Gecko appears to be sufficient -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A complete unreferenced, unencyclopedic article about an unnotable subject. prod removed by author so it must mean something to someone. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to HHey Gujju, then move the merged article to this title leaving a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future film with no evidence of notability Smappy (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely composed of an infobox, a track list, and a credits section. There is no lead section or any actual sentences, and the references are sparse with the two working references existing in the Credit section. There's nothing that would lead me to believe that the album is notable. Sorafune +1 04:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor character without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted
Dwanyewest (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<del>
— per nom as unsourced, non-notable. it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 18:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This software started out in 1994, and is now at major version number 8. Despite this, I'm unable to find significant independent coverage about it. Pcap ping 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant independent coverage of this software in reliable sources. The article is being edited by an user name whose similarity with the software's creator name indicates a WP:COI. Pcap ping 10:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself, OR * listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications, OR * used to calculate stock market indices. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded.Chukie m (talk)
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
prod2 that was suddenly contested minutes before expiry by single-edit IP. I cannot find significant third-party coverage in reliable sources for this company. Haakon (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a project to build a new type of aircraft. Unfortunately, it is impossible to establish notability because the only source is the designer's own page. A Google search for "verticopter" yields nothing that meets the criteria of a reliable source let alone anything that would satisfy the draft notability guidelines for aircraft. I therefore reluctantly conclude that we should delete the article. -- Rlandmann (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown notability for encyclopedia. Concerns on legitimacy of claims made. NJA (t/c) 10:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a non-notable local amateur soccer team. Does not appear to have played professionally or at the highest amateur level of the sport, as per WP:ATHLETE -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this club has never played at a high enough level. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Precedent shows that career minor leaguers are not inherently notable, and there is little else to assert notability. Subject did manage in the minor leagues, but it was at Class D, which is the absolute lowest level of organized professional baseball. Article was created by User:Drewmurray (long since disappeared from the project), which may indicate COI issues. caknuck ° needs to be running more often 08:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article can probably be written about this, but as it stands, this is nothing more than a list of Indian states and a few random city pairings thrown in (no references for anything). Delete —SpacemanSpiff 07:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N. Article's assertion of notability rests on being the first badminton facility "of its kind" in Western Canada, to having hosted the Canadian National Championships, and to producing some National Championships medal winners. Only source provided is the company Web site. A Google News/Books/Scholar search returns one mention in a Vancouver Resident's Guide. Given some of the claims in the article, this apparent total lack of coverage is surprising. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minor-bit actor. Almost no sources at all, and a frequent target of misinformation. Hipocrite (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
querstionable notability on a tour that doesn't even begin for another 2 months. Many things can change before it starts (such as the dates) Alan - talk 07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Can be recreated as a redirect if a suitable target article is found. Also, a light scolding to the nominator for using Wikipedia-specific acronyms in the nomination statement without bothering to link them for those that may not know what they mean, as suggested in the guide to deletion. (a minor issue perhaps bit it's a pet peeve of mine) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR by synth, non-notable. There has not been any substantial writing (at least in English) on this particular possible linkage, and there is no particular reason, some historical confluence or overlap, that would cause someone to wonder, "Gee, do the Norwegian royalty descend from Byzantine people?" It is like someone threw a dart at a map and connected the nations hit on a whim. Agricolae (talk) 02:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator, no other concerns DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page has multiple issues. WP:OR, and WP:NPOV are tagged on the page, but the main reason for this proposal is the lack of citations and sources. It does not even include all states on the List of Sovereign States, specifically States with limited recognition. On top of all this, the page is hopelessly out of date (one example, the first line says Kosovo is a proposed state). The page also appears to have hidden paragraphs within it. Desperately requires a clean up, and is unencyclopedic. I do not feel this page is salvageable, as it is, at this stage. Unless things change, it should be deleted (I would not oppose it being recreated from sratch afterward though). Outback the koala (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to O Rio, A Cidade, A Árvore. Any sourced content can be retrieved from the page history and merged. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can't find anything notable about this single Alan - talk 06:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. On the weak participation here, there's no consensus to delete but it certainly seems that a merge to Mallu Magalhães may be the best solution. This is left to editors' discretion. ~ mazca talk 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
appears to fail notability Alan - talk 06:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mallu Magalhães (album). Consensus is that it's insufficiently notable for a separate article, and wholly unsourced. Feel free to include sourceable information in the target article. ~ mazca talk 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
can't find anything notable about this single except it was never released to radio. appears to be something that will never be more than a stub if that much Alan - talk 06:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This does contain some assertion of notability, so I was on the fence about speedying it. But is playing a trading card game notable? I stand corrected if it is. SS✞(Kay) 05:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was tagged for speedy deletion. A google search shows some hits, but I'm not entirely certain this is notable. The advisory board seems to have a few well known names, and they do seem to have some publications. Overall I can't decide myself on this one, so taking here for review. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to be perfectly honest, I was considering not nominating this to AFD and just going with the speedy deletion reason. This seems to be OR! However, it's got enough references in it to give me pause. Taking to AFD for review. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely concatenation of subjects. Woogee (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @666 · 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This biography doesn't make much of a claim of notability and I haven't been able to find significant coverage of this person in third-party sources. There are quite a number of primary sources within the article but without any tertiary sources the article is original research. ThemFromSpace 03:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this college radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by IP, apparently in bad faith (huh?). No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. For instance, no reviews of the book or the individual found in NYT or other large papers, Google Scholar was pretty thin. tedder (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Purely a procedural nomination. Some users who apparently work for the subject of the article want it deleted, the article has been protected (by me) to stop disruption. If said users have a valid reason for deletion they can make their case here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The deprodder added more primary sources but failed to address the central issue of the prod, which was a lack of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 10:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, non-notable school program Ridernyc (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress lacking GHits of substance and zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. ttonyb (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, this person is not notable at all--there is nothing whatsoever except for the IMDB entry. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a joint nomination for the organization and the same-titled album.
The organization and the album both fail GNG, which requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only material coverage I was able to identify for either the album or the organization was in Christian sources. Note that there is tons of notable Christian music that—that is, Christian music that gets significant coverage in reliable sources that are not dedicated to Christian topics (Billboard has at least four Christian charts), so I am not in any way suggesting that Christian music is in any way inherently non-notable).
The organization also fails WP:ORG, which for non-commercial organizations requires both:
(1) is not met by funding international charities. (2) is not met by having a few write-ups in very closely-linked sources. Since both are required, the organization doesn't meet the guideline.
I do not believe that WP:MUSIC is applicable to the organization as the article is about a charitable organization. Were it to be applicable, these are how the criteria would be applied. The only possible hope is (6), and I don't believe it is reasonable to come to a positive conclusion on that one, either.
The album may be considered by reference to WP:NALBUMS, which points back to the the basic criteria of N (i.e., WP:GNG) as the only way to establish notability for an album. The album, as mentioned above, fails GNG. Bongomatic 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was restored after speedy. This isn't in my field, so I can not claim I tried every possibility, but i could not verify any of it to any source that was not self-published. I could not verify the books at all--neither WorldCat nor Amazon nor Google hass heard of either the books or the author. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources requested well over THREE YEARS AGO, and someone added another Wiki as a source? It doesn't matter, WP:NOT a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable third party sources, and nothing in this article which suggests that this performer is notable. Woogee (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a product catalog or buyer's guide. There are comparison matrices of notable topics having Wikipedia articles, but the items being compared here are all linked to external product pages. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. Appears to fail WP:ACTOR. ttonyb (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. And cleanup. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a dictionary of neologisms and unsuitable for Wikipedia. Previous AFD ended with keep after a user proposed cleanup which doesn't appear to have taken place three years later. Anything that is a notable neologism appears to already have its own page. GetOutFrogribbit 00:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @167 · 03:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This BLP is about a castmember of the MTV reality television show, The Jersey Shore. All the salient information is already included in the parent article, and it's not clear how this goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Should be redirected, in my opinion, and possibly revived if she does something notable beyond appearing on the Jersey Shore. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @166 · 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this establishment is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. One mention in the local rag and a puff piece in USA Today about Boyd Gaming building a riverboat do not add up to significant coverage in secondary sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @167 · 02:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB notability guidelines. No third-party recognition and no independent sources seem to have taken notice. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Gnews hits, her website no longer exists. Doesn't seem to be any claim to notability. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]