The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the following:
No official charts were published before 1975 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/CU0605/S00312.htm Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. NW (Talk) 02:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an essay; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was copied and pasted directly from somewhere else. Smells like plagiarism/copyvio to me (not to mention the BLP issues; the article seems to portray the subject in a rather negative light without providing inline citations for the more potentially-inflammatory statements). Stonemason89 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for rescue because, while this article is about a notable person (There are over 20 references, and about half are books), the information in the article isn't sufficient. This article needs to be edited to include more information from the references listed. This might establish notability better. Matthewrbowker (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a blatant hoax. —Soap— 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future release, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Access Denied 21:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I said I wasn't going to delete any "1 !voters" but this is a mostly unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability offered. Macrakis (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about nothing in particular. It is a grouping of people who won the title of Mr. Basketball in their respective state that doesn't have an article yet. Not encyclopedic at all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was already deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about nothing in particular. It is a grouping of people who won the title of Mr. Basketball in their respective state that doesn't have an article yet. Not encyclopedic at all. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Not notable per insufficient third party references. Being added as spam.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Secret account 02:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the first time a good article has ever been nominated for AFD, but seriously all the sources, with the exception of http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/05/60minutes/main557188.shtml this one] are either not independent of the subject, has nothing to do with the subject like the fire news stories, or are local news coverage which I don't see as significant of the subject, and they talk about different high schools that use debate, not the debate society in general. The news source I linked talked about debating in Inner-city schools and just used a Baltimore high school as an example not about the league, that's not sigificant, non trivial coverage. Fails WP:N, borderline WP:COATRACK article. Anything mergeable should be used on the school's article, not here. Delete Secret account 20:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. nominator withdrew Secret account 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced since 2007. No reliable sources found to verify the information (all the sources I could find were written by Rip himself) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable economist/documentarian whose article was deleted once before, there are still no sources from which to write a BLP. Sources just show that his films won awards at non-notable film festivals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Minor places in Middle-earth. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why this is notable - completely in-universe fancruft Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search revealed some press releases but no significant coverage. Article lacks references, and subject apparently not notable. What do others think? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This biography already exists under the name Ayub Daud. --Spartan008 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources, is thoroughly non-neutral, and does not establish the notability of the subject. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't meet the notability criteria. New author published by a vanity press. Pichpich (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created by someone who really should know our criteria better. (struck... case of the two bobs) Subject does not pass the WP:GNG, and does not EVEN meet WP:NFOOTBALL, which sets a pathetically low bar. --WFC-- 16:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this musician truly notable? When I conducted a Google search, there appears to be very little about him, and most of the pages that were in fact about him were mirrors of Wikipedia. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently verify the contents of the article. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. J04n(talk page) 16:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable video game. Nothing substantial in Google. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This game was one of the last games developed by LoricielsGame Companies: Loriciels, a well-know video game developer. It was not a hit, but it was programmed by a professional team[12], distributed worldwide and review by leading magazinesGame reviews at AMR.
--El Pantera (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single event. Initially identified on Wikipedia as a hoax until a single BBC article revealed the coverage around Dulcis foetidus to be part of a single, non-notable crowd psychology experiment. This event does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability. Rkitko (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Article provides no references; removed PROD; and indicates that the subject may be original research. After removing the PROD, author stated, "Theorem not previously noted, most likely because it is far from obvious. Theorem is surprisingly nice, and reminiscent of Pythagoras. The 'simple' proof uses a little-known theorem from Euclid." The request for feedback stated, "A hitherto unrecorded mathematical theorem after Pythagoras is presented." Recommendation to delete based on original research and lack of notability. Cindamuse (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Band does not appear to be notable per WP:Music. I took a quick look to see if the band's only album even charted on any of the Billboard charts in which the band's name isn't even found. Additionally, there's no sources for this statement: "The band enjoyed critical success in USA and Japan, but was a commercial failure." Not only that, but it seems like a contradiction to what is being stated. No awards either for the band have been found. Magiciandude (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. A merge may be discussed on the series article's talk page, to determine how to proceed. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for references for this series of books, and expected to find some as the author is clearly notable. However, the only mention in a reliable source that I have found is a short review of one of the books in the series, here. I do not think that is enough to show notability. I will nominate the individual book articles as well, as part of this AfD - of eight books in the series, five have articles, none of which contains more than a plot summary. bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the articles for the individual books, see reasoning above.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator removed PROD template without comment or improvement. PROD was based on: Fails notability for WP:AUTHOR. Although the subject has written and published two plays, searches have failed to reveal any WP:RS reliable sources that clearly assert the notability and importance of this author/playwright. Kudpung (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may qualify for a speedy. I feel that the subject of this article fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The list of facts about the person, besides being essentially unintelligible, are back up by references that do not verify any of the information provided. They're either to pages that don't exist or to references of dubious reliability that don't even mention the subject of the article. It could be tagged for a speedy with A1/G1, A7, and/or G3. The person may also be alive and as no references that I checked even mention the subject, it may qualify for a prod per unreferenced BLP. OlYellerTalktome 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Galactic Traveller (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. I'm sure that this is great fun, but notable ... no. No reliable third party sources, and no real claim of notability in the article, indeed it's acknowledged that this is only played at a "secret campground" in Canada. Deadly∀ssassin 10:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. No evidence given of notability, in fact no description of why this person may be notable. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising/promotional article about a company product that is currently in development and not yet released. The announcement of the product was just made in September 2010. No independent references provided to establish notability through significant sources. WP:CRYSTAL. Cindamuse (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable model. I am having a difficult time in looking for anything to support this BLP's notability, aside WP:COI edits and all its sources are all personal sites.
Also as she only had one decent role, every other appearances are minor one-episode roles, therefore she fails to meet WP: ENT. Donnie Park (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable footballer who has not made a first-team appearance ina full-time professional league Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has played first team for BK HACKEN and forhiscounty at under 21 User:triplelou
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable player per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Rugby_league. Has not played professionally or represented his country Mattlore (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band from Brisbane. The article was previously deleted under WP:CSD#A7 but was quickly restored by the original creator. I nominated under CSD#A7 again but this was changed to a prod by somebody which was then contested. Other than a couple of music directories there seems to be very little coverage about this band. The references in the article include some primary sources and even a facebook page to pad the list out but this still doesn't give the band enough coverage to meet the general notability guidelines. AussieLegend (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Rome, Georgia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mistitled article about Rome, Italy gifting a statue to Rome, Georgia; there's nothing here that couldn't frankly be dealt with in two lines at Rome, Georgia. Previously prodded, but creator removed the prod template with no rationale or improvement. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 06:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy declined. Fails notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Last Letters Home. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soldier whose only notability was being profiled in a single documentary. While he is not living, the notable for one thing only rule still applies. Dondegroovily (talk) 04:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 08:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poker website. Could not find evidence it meets CORP with no reliable coverage of the site. Lots of press releases and other spam though providing routine announcements. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Redirect to Online poker. Reasonable search term. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. QuAzGaA 17:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unverified. PROD (not mine) removed by creator without explanation. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable article, not much more than an Wiktionary entry. At best, this should link to articles for DDS and MD. There's nothing to be gained from the conjunction. This article has just about zero content that would not appear in the DDS and MD articles. Should we have a separate article for BA BS, as some college students graduate with a BA and a BS? Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This a local, community, non-fully professional organisation that provides umpires for local, community, non-fully professional sporting leagues. I think WP:NOTWEBHOST covers this. Completely unreferenced apart from two self published official websites. The-Pope (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claims notability through multiple redlink awards and Hugo nominations. I have been unable to verify any of the Hugo award nominations, nor can I find any reliable secondary sources that discuss him or his work in any detail. Article was tagged for notability over a year ago, and has only 9 edits in the past two years. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Primary source. IMDB returns nothing; Google hits Wikipedia and Facebook plus obscure news. Article edits have been few and nonsubstantial. –Paul M. Nguyen (chat|blame) 02:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other." Categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. Editorial decisions such as merging should be discussed on the talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded listcruft. Create a category if absolutely needed, but this list is not. Note: previously a no consensus discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Leaguers Who Played for Penn State. Grsz11 22:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Just a few non-local appearences as support act to other more notable bands and at a couple of festivals. No chart singles/EPs and no albums. No significant mention in reliable sources. Doubt they meet WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet the standards for bands. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the band are prominently featured at http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/festivals/readingandleeds/2010/artists/clubsmith/ and are featured in multiple music reviews, a summary of which can be seen on their website. Furthermore the band have recorded and released a full-length album in Japan available at (sorry for the unicode link) http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%87%E3%82%A3%E3%82%B7%E3%82%B8%E3%83%A7%E3%83%B3%E3%82%BA-%E3%82%B6%E3%83%BB%E3%83%98%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC/dp/B000WGUJEO/ref=pd_rhf_shvl_3 . The band's Maida Vale session with Huw Stephens on Radio 1 was around half an hour. The band could arguably fit three of the WP:BAND criteria although I accept there inclusion is subject to debate. User:thomasf2811 02:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.186.146 (talk) [reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A redirect will be created to Mumbai University Institute of Chemical Technology as it is a viable search term. Mkativerata (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable event. I've only found one trivial mention about it here. Mattg82 (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NSONGS as there's no charts, no significant idependent coverage and no other info apart from the track listing. Such pages should not exist per the given guideline. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS no significant independent coverage, exists just to promote the EP's track listing. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 00:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University program that seems not that important to the university in question. Dondegroovily (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No prejudice to pagemove. Feel free to discuss on talk page or be bold. Jujutacular talk 03:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has been tagged as WP:Original research since April 2008. This is a well written essay about a very interesting (at least to me) and important subject. Also the maps are quite nice and represent a lot of work. However I think it really should be published somewhere other than an encyclopedia. The facts about the ethnic makeup of the United States are already available in other articles, this one is mainly about one person's opinions and speculations. Jaque Hammer (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP for someone only known for one thing Dondegroovily (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article was dePRODed following the addition of a reference proving the subject's existence. Notability, such as for example, a military award or remarkable conduct or action in war, does not appear to have been asserted. Kudpung (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 03:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems premature. Only one source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about an online document that purports to provide an "evolving 'way forward' proposal which aims to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East." The title has no Google News hits, and the Google Web hits that I see look to me like the result of first-party promotion. This article, too, is, I believe, a case of first-party promotion. None of the cited sources mention the document, other than the document itself. My view is that this is a document of no import, and that it would not be possible to find third-party sources to sustain an article about it. Delete as non-notable. Hesperian 00:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus on whether the Web Cartoonist's Choice and Col. Warden's source are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Obviously, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, and WP:NOTAGAIN on the "keep" side, and WP:PERNOM and WP:ALLCAPS on the "delete" side do nothing to help their respective cases. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable. All sources are comixtalk (deemed unreliable in the past), personal blogs or the comic itself. Claims to awards are sourced, but the Web Cartoonist's Choice award is generally deemed insufficient (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures). The fact that it was printed in book form doesn't convey notability, nor does the fact that it lasted for 10 years, nor does the fact that it's hosted on Keenspot. Notability is not inherited from Keenspot.
A search on Gnews found only four hits, none of which amount to non-trivial coverage: in fact, one just mentions that the cartoonist will be at a convention. On plain Google, the first hits are its website, this article, TV Tropes, WikiFur, Cafepress, Deviantart, Comixpedia and the comic's forum. Also listing the author's article for similar lack of notability.
Yes, I know it has a green disc in the corner, but don't let that stop you. Zig Zag (character) was somehow ranked as a GA only months before its deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability Reqluce (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Fashion designer/businesswoman who does not meet notability standards. Has not demonstrated significant contribution to fashion in any way. Has not achieved any significant award in fashion. Does not have any reliable 3rd party references to back up the 2 notability factors. Official website is deadlink- even more unnotable.Reqluce (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Vampire Hunter D. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fictional gang. Little notability and probably either has a better role in Vampire Hunter D#Characters or could be cut. Raymie (t • c) 03:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this yesterday with the reason "Unnotable split single - cant find coverage, no references, charting, nothing". Prod was removed by an editor with the reason that At the Drive-In are notable. Indeed they are, but not every release by a notable act has sufficient coverage in reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Released by a non-notable label. Not an official compilation, absolutely no secondary sources; even the Allmusic listing is blank. Prod declined simply because another article linked to it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gambling website. Appears to fail CORP as lacks sources and could not find any that would enable it to meet CORP. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Treat this as an uncontested PROD. Courcelles 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written, unsourced article. Unsure of song's notability. Dondegroovily (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. leaning towards a Keep, at this point in time, due to improvements post time of AFD relisting. -- Cirt (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film with a cast of unknowns. Has never been released to theaters, nor even to DVD. Has won awards, but all at non-notable film festivals. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]