The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One-time political candidate, failing WP:POLITICIAN, a syndicated columnist, author and co-host of The View for one day. I don't believe all of this combined meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article uses but one reference, no inline citations. A google search turns up no evidence of the existence of the legend described in the article. Almost 30 years of living in Magdeburg, I have never encountered the story or anything similar. Madcynic (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blatant autobio with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was lost the match, 40-love (delete). The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obvious advertisement. This self-proclaimed coach did nothing that is notable (didn't coach any notable player). User:Eztennisswingcontribs only registered to create this article, no other activity (strengthens the suspicion for advertising Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 22:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete per WP:BLPPROD, as no reliable sources had been added within the ten days after the BLP PROD tag was added. Once someone has a reliable source, they should request undeletion at WP:REFUND. If Mr. Jones is as notable as those below say, this should not take very long. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BLP article with no reliable references (subject's own website and Facebook page only); repeated removal of BLPPROD tag by author despite warnings and explanations. GILO ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY 20:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. BigDom talk 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely unsourced BLP. The only external link is to his own website. I cannot find any evidence that this person meets our notability criteria. --B (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Ironholds (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about a non-notable product. The article has had some problems with spam and copyright violations, but those issues can be solved with rewriting; what can't be solved as easily is the issue of notability. A search for sources yields only primary sources/press releases and a few trivial mentions in tech blogs. If anybody finds more in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources, it should be kept, otherwise deleted until it becomes notable. bonadea contributions talk 17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the XIM3 article is about a very notable product. It is the first of its type to provide completely accurate game play and is allowed by microsoft. It also incorporates a technology of "smart translators" which is able to create an exact 1v1 ration between mouse movement and controller movement. The statement that it has a "few trivial mentions" is an understatement. It is being mentioned all over the web and popularity is increasing by the minute. The current community on the forum is 8471 users . . . That is just on the developers forum. I believe this is more than a non-notable product.Webb.joshua (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
http://hothardware.com/News/XIM3-Adapter-Enables-Keyboard--Mouse-Control-On-Xbox-360/
http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/01/xim3-final-hardware-revealed-coming-soon-to-give-an-unfair-adva/
http://thetechjournal.com/electronics/gaming-electronics/xim3-mega-adapter.xhtml
http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20101220/xim-technologies-xim3-adapter/
Do any of these count? And if so, do I put them on here? I will continue my search . . .this was all just from the first page of google searching . . . Webb.joshua (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, this is my first time doing this. I am now adding "relevant" information. . . . keyword being informationWebb.joshua (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This product is just finishing its open beta and is about to go completely public. They are hiring a PR person and it will be all over the web soon. I dont know what you actually plan on deleting it, but trust me, there will be plenty of web coverage for this product before too much longer. Webb.joshua (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ive saved all the info so that if it does get deleted, in a few weeks when things sky rocket, I will repost it. Thanks for being easy to work with and dealing with my noobieness on Wikipedia lol.Webb.joshua (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ANDDDD, I did the name wrong, its XIM3 lol. SO if it does get deleted, ill get to do the name right next time! Webb.joshua (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once I have it added to one of my pages, how would I go about asking one of you all for help? It it helps at all, I work as an IT guy so I know what I am doing when it comes to computers. Just getting used to the interface of Wikipedia and how to use it(besides just searching for information).Webb.joshua (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if it becomes a hit or cult classic. The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small non-notable computer game. Captain Hindsight (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notable private elementary school. Longstanding consensus on Wikipedia is that elementary schools are not entitled to an article unless they demonstrate notability. Previously prodded and deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 15:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still unsourced after 5 years. Little to no biographical coverage. Gigs (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't seem to be notable at all. No sources cited. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created this article but I now feel the company might not be notable enough, especially since the few reliables sources we had are now dead links. None of the current sources appears to be reliable as they are mostly press releases and such, or are not about WorldVentures. Besides, the article is now only edited by paid editors and single-purpose accounts with a clear conflict of interest. Laurent (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was speedy delete. G7 Ronhjones (Talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources in the article are unreliable primary sources that do not count towards notability. No "Significant coverage" in reliable secondary sources as far as i can see from my search. Has the notability tag since December 2009. IQinn (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC) IQinn (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost no content, reliable sources, or anything for that matter. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not notable Superman7515 (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was redirect to Bachelor of Ayurveda, Medicine and Surgery. The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blatant WP:PROMO. No notability. bender235 (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 14:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likely autobiography by MadhavaDenhaag (talk · contribs). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. bender235 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fails WP:Politician, is not notable. He isn't even a county councillor anymore and the article is poorly referenced.
Exiledone (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per G12 by Stephen (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 01:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How-to guide for making Right to Information Act requests in India; title is a neologism. Author deleted prod notice without explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to be a hoax. The district does not appear on the citation that was quoted (I have removed the citation, which referred to the Statoids website). The author's only contributions on English Wikipedia have been to create this article and to add the supposed district to the Administrative divisions section at Libya. Most sources list 22 districts in Libya after 2007: this would be a 23rd district. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus. Just about scrapes through based on coverage Siawase found, I think. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Company article which fails the notability criteria at WP:CORP. Only reference is a newspaper advertorial from 1998. Article, which reads like an advert, was created by what seems to be a single-purpose account. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 12:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can find no evidence this person meets our criteria at WP:BIO. The external links don't mention him, the 2 inline citations are about a lineage. Neither name shows up in Google News, and the only book seems to be a Wikipedia clone. Dougweller (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. This is not merely a list of "facts" (such as a list of schools sorted by no. of teachers), but the result of research by EducationWorld/C fore. Such lists are copyrighted (unless otherwise stated), since the researchers spend a considerable amount of time and money on creating them. utcursch | talk 17:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Highly subjective subject based on a single reference. Not seeing how an article on this subject could be effectively and nuetrally maintained. RadioFan (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contested PROD. Unreferenced playground game that has the hallmarks of being WP:MADEUP. Someone has removed some of the more obvious indicators of madeup-ness (e.g. personal names) but with nothing more added all that is left is unremarkable. roleplayer 11:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PRODed as failing WP:MUSIC, contested today, and I find myself agreeing with the prodders, there's nothing here that passes notability requirements. Courcelles 11:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was redirect to History of Victoria. Consensus to delete; as the article dates back to 2005, I've left a redirect to the History of Victoria article...which dates back to 2002! The Bushranger One ping only 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is an unreferenced article on an important subject, all of whose content is contained in other referenced articles, and the content of which is not worthy of retention Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was redirect to Pokémon. The article was created by a clear WP:COI account in 2008; it was redirected to Pokémon a month after creation, then on 20 February 2011 had that reverted(!) by an IP editor. Although the article has been cleaned up a bit, it's still questionable whether it would surivive a CSD if it had been nominated for that instead of AfD; and, as is obvious below, the consensus is to delete. Accordingly, restoring to its state as a revert seems to be the proper course of action here; the website might deserve a mention in the main article if it isn't already, but not its own page. The Bushranger One ping only 23:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notable website, fails WP:WEB. WP:COI by creator. Shire Reeve (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Comment In the AfD log, there may appear to be a post about the South Wales Coalfield at the bottom of this section. This is due to a faulty nomination, and is nothing to do with this discussion. I hope to get it sorted ASAP. Peridon (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Problem sorted. Peridon (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure of discussion started in wrong place). Peridon (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've listed this page for deletion in an attempt to resolve a problem of capitalization. All the words in the page title South Wales coalfield should be capitalized, but the page can't be moved as South Wales Coalfield already exists. Deleting the latter would make room for it. Obscurasky (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Thanks for the reply. I don't feel really strongly about this; it caught my eye because it appears to be the only coalfield on Wikipedia that isn't capitalised (List of coalfields). I had thought about simply cutting and pasting the whole article, but I know that's against Wiki protocol - so I thought I'd try and do it by the book (mistake). Thank you for your offer to attempt a non-admin closure - I think that would be the best option."
I am performing a non-admin closure as discussed with the nominator and as pure housekeeping. Peridon (talk) 10:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fails WP:AUTHOR Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fails WP:BAND Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notable book lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable elementary school in Texas. Article has essentially no content to speak of. Zachlipton (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non notable podcast. Borders on CSD for promotion. Contested PROD. PROD removed with claim that it was notable, though no new references or improvements made to page. Ravendrop (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly, this article has no references and citations to establish the notability. Contains in-universe information, no real world coverage to provide it. JJ98 (Talk) 03:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. -- Lear's Fool 14:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non-notable business school award created by for promotional purposes. See discussion at: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Peter_B._Gustavson_School_of_Business Zachlipton (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The term Oprahization is clearly a neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. 4meter4 (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was Wasn't ready to rumble (delete). The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Does not meet film notability guidelines or WP:GNG. PROD was removed, no reason given Stu.W UK (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was MERGE to Turkey – United Kingdom relations and Egypt – United Kingdom relations. postdlf (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not convinced that this embassy meets WP:NOTE. Note that there is already a more developed article on Turkey – United Kingdom relations, which is well placed to cover diplomatic ties. All that I can see as being left to cover in this article is the embassy building itself, which doesn't seem notable. Cordless Larry (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page (note that Egypt – United Kingdom relations exists):
Oppose Not a good idea. Embassies in principle are noteworthy and should be expanded. A deletion tag should be put if it was pure vandalism, which it is not. An "expand" tag should suffice to make the article better. Gryffindor (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Procedural nomination on behalf of Rockneedsasavior (talk · contribs), as it appears Twinkle broke. I assume the rationale is that this is an indiscriminate list.
For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Marginal rapper that doesn't seem to quite qualify on his own. Orange Mike | Talk 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pls let me know what is required to prove that Sewak Sanjaynath is a Notable religious leader? Let me know how I can contact you through mails. I am new to wikipedia. But deleting the page is not a solution. - Thanks Rashmi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashmi.shri (talk • contribs) 10:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I struggled to find any notable coverage, just sa few articles with quotes by him. As currently presented, fails to meet notability requirements for a professor or academic Yaksar (let's chat) 02:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. gnews turns up a lot of namesakes [32]. imdb shows an unremarkable career full of one off appearances. [33]. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (see comment under the first "Keep"), no delete !votes standing (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A search for reference found no published (gBook) WP:RS for the content of this article. A few mentions of the BDO are found but nothing for 1991, the organizations web page does not list (that I could find) results from 1991. The web page says "On June 3rd, 2005 the application by The British Darts Organisation for darts to be recognised as a bona-fide sport", implying that it was not prior to that. All indications are that these early articles fail WP:N and WP:V Jeepday (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Deleted under speedy deletion criterion G11. -- Lear's Fool 15:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a non-notable product from Grip Pod Systems. The article was deleted a year ago on my PROD (thus not PRODdable again), and in my judgment it probably isn't blatant advertising (but quite borderline, and if anyone wants to speedy it, be my guest). A short product review on American Rifleman's website (the only mentionable reference) certainly does not add up to encyclopedic notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not notable, barely referenced possible hoax and WP:COI. This whole article is very odd. The Allmusic link is genuine enough, and there is an overview and reviews there. But nothing he's produced seems remotely notable. The movies and TV shows on Imdb have single figure review numbers and often all the reviews are similarly (oddly) formatted. The reference to a title track written by Nile Rodgers and Bernard Edwards appears to relate to the 1980 album King of the World but this isn't hinted at here. The websites referred to do seem to have existed, but a quick look on the Wayback Machine doesn't suggest they amounted to much - definitely not enough to get 2 million users! The COI applies to user:mnemonicof. Nearly all their edits relate to this man or his projects. Global Edge Mnemonics also seems to be the name of the company which runs the websites mentioned in 'internet projects'. I was also going to nominate all the albums, films and tv shows (as far as I can tell, never broadcast or distributed) associated with him but presumably they can be speedy deleted if their creator is deemed un-notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notable founder, notable alumni but notability is not inherited. Current refs are either not from reliable sources or passing mentions. WP:BEFORE has been applied in earlier nomination(s), but again there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for this business enterprise. Shirt58 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Delete The only bit of significant coverage is the Time Out piece but that is just a local piece in a street press magazine. Not enough for WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
non notable local theater group WuhWuzDat 17:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. the Advertisement was previously deleted under WP:CSD#G11 as Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Seems to be nothing more than Non-Notable Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was Delete. There is no substantial coverage in reliable sources establishing notability.Cúchullain t/c 14:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Despite claims of popularity, I get few ghits except for lyrics sites about the Beastie Boys song. No sources here regarding a mistaken authorship. Article fails to establish notability, and the requirements per WP:NSONGS are not met. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a: 'college girls are easy' returns 9.6 million hits - not just a few
b: 'college girls song' returns over 6 million hits
c: there are lyric sites, but also to videos and a number of sites asking who actually wrote the song
d: the beastie boys, nwa, and easy-e versions of the songs videos and lyrics are all links to sites that are actually referencing Jesse Jaymes' but are mislableled as the beastie boys, nwa and easy-e
e: the confusion mentioned above was the primary reason for authoring this article.
f: the search results indicate a genuine interest in the authenticity of the song's true authorship.
g: juno and stifle are siting opinion and not fact as per wikipedia song.
h: this song is certainly as notable as many of the eventually forgettable internet memes that have embrazened the web. it may not be a good song, or a song of preference, but it is a song that has been circulating for over 20 years that many people have heard and only a handful have been able to properly identify.
Google search results have already begun to improve with the inception of this article on wikipedia. Jesse Jaymes video even shows up as a suggested search result (along side with suggestions to easy-e and beastie boys unfortunately), where it hadn't returned any proper results in the past (at least not on the first page or 2). As far as notability of other songs goes, "shake it" made the billboard top 100 and has also been featured in movie soundtracks — comment added by Nophonenophone (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why was the page deleated before any of the information could be consolidated on to the authors website? this was a huge mistake and some notice could have been given.
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account(JessicaHogstrom (talk · contribs)) with no other edits other than related to WomanStats Project, in addition to beingemployed by WomanStats Project. Previously deleted[34] as Blatant advertising and promotion. Previous versions were created by an SPA sock puppet of Wikigender. Seems to be nothing more than Non-Notable Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was redirect to Pokémon. (Weak) consensus to delete. Redirect seems reasonable and may avoid need for later G4's. The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non notable fan term. Only source is Bulbapedia, a wiki. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another problematic article. As with some of my other nominations, I could not find any reliable sources to establish the notability of this group. Of the sources listed, the first one does not cover the group in detail, and the last two are potential security threats as I could not get either link to work, and the second link is the website of the article. So, fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:N, and WP:V. ArcAngel (talk) ) 09:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That si correct but you could make the same claims for any hacker group or more "preotected" community (for example Anonymous). The links wont work anymore because milworm is down. if you search for the stuff you find mirrors and OSDB entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.113.119 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was delete. Poorly sourced BLP. Will userfy or incubate upon request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
fails WP:BIO. pretty unremarkable career. 1 gnews hits [35]. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was merge. I would add that if the nominator already felt merger was an acceptable action they could have simply proposed as much on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Subject received media coverage for a Facebook fan page, in what I believe this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Depodded by article with the explanation: "Subj may only have 1 "event", it is significant as she was integral in getting 1st African Amer sitcom that was canx 2b revived which is major in the AA community she will not remain a low profile"; the latter part of which, if I understand correctly, is some pretty heavy WP:CRYSTAL.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The result was Delete. Verifiability is non-negotiable.Cúchullain t/c 14:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NN web game, appears to fail WP:WEB. Deleted twice previously because of that, and content is at the moment more of a guide (which Wikipedia is not). I was able to find only a couple links that weren't to fansites or game guides in a google search. Syrthiss (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]