< 8 January | 10 January > |
---|
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced BLP of an Egyptian artist, but activity seems mundane and standard fare; nothing seems particularly notable. Significant COI issues. Note without prejudice that the French Wikipedia article was deleted. Stephen 23:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deletion of all three as blatant hoaxes, per WP:G3. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character created for a university project, no evidence of notability Feezo (Talk) 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created as part of the same project and have the same issue:
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this article reads like a resume, and seems to be an attempt at "notability by association"... i.e., none of the awards are actually for "his" work, per se, but albums/TV shows that he has worked on in some capacity. To wit, just because an album is nominated for an award doesn't mean that every single person associated in some way with that album is notable. Similarly, the award for School of Hard Knocks was in the "Schools Factual Secondary" category of the British Academy Children's Awards, and not in a music category, and thus to claim notability by association in that regard (or to call it the BAFTA for best documentary) seems disingenuous. Most of the references provided are merely credits in which his name is mentioned (among others) without any actual coverage; some don't even mention him at all (i.e., the quote from Billboard that is prominently placed in the lead of the article doesn't state his name). To state that he is "known for playing guitar and mixing records" doesn't seem justified; unless there are actual reliable sources indicating how this specific individual meets WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:GNG, I recommend deletion. Kinu t/c 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia editing, this is the only article I have worked on. Working on the article has been a great learning experience for me, gathering the sources and gaining insite from other editors. It does read a little like a resume, however, I find Todd Tracy notable because he is credited with mixing, editing, playing guitar and bass on an album that has increased in notability, in fact evidence of cult status for the album is provable and growing. His role on the album is not just in "some capacity", he recorded and mixed the album and played the guitar parts, I have the album in front of me and he is clearly listed top of the line. Produced by Skee-lo and Walter Kahn assisted by Todd Tracy. Third name on Album of like a hundred names. Also, he is listed as a musician and a third time special thanks from the president of the record company. No other person is given three credits on the album. So it is "his" work that was nominated for Best Rap Album. Music people and fans really get into who did what and he did a lot. Secondly, School of Hard Knocks won a BAFTA, he was the composer for the show, thats notable. Thirdly, the quote from Billboard clearly states that he is the composer and then Larry flick goes on to talk about the composition of the song. Billboard found it notable. Fourth, on Jennifer Paige's wiki page it clearly talks about the song that got the deal leading to her number one worlwide hit. Todd Tracy is credited with engineering that song. Fifth point, I have a new third party source, The Album Network published an expose on Todd Tracy and review, this will clearly meet the guidlines and I would hate for the article and all my work to be deleted just as I have tracked down the ten year old article published about Todd Tracy. Sixth point, I find it fascinating that he was associated with all of these different acts, performing different roles for each. Composing for this one engineering for that one, playing guitar for others, mixing others, producing more, now I have found singing (critically acclaimed) notable for its wide range roles. I keep on finding more references the more I look. I have found references to this guy all over the place, I will admit more so to his work than he but I know it exists. I am going to make the article better. I will rework the lead and ad the new sources. Some editors have expressed frustration over my very humble wiki abilities, but those abilities are growing and I have many ideas for new and existing articles. This is my first time and I have run into every problem but am learning thru fixing the probs. Sorry for being a pain in the ass but I will get it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 05:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh one other point, he was awarded at least two gold records and a golden reel award for his efforts on the album. So he did win awards. Working on issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I get it now, the GNG is a guidline that helps to presume notability but not establish it. Multiple third party sources such as album credits don't cut it because the world hasn't heard of them, just some guys name on record that millions of people around the world bought. Also a song review from Billboard doesn't count because subject is only listed as the writer of the song not the singer, only music people read Billboard, hardly gets out to the world. I dont know why billboard lists the writers anyway?, they probably only list the writer of the song that their talking about for industry people not the general public. Receiving two gold records certified by the RIAA for playing guitar and engineering doesn't count as receiving an major award because gold records dont count. The National Acadamy of Recording Arts and Sciences nomination is not really concerned with the actual recording or the music, its just a marketing thing nobody listens to the music, certainly not for a silly catagory like Best Rap Album, thats not a televised catagory so who cares. In rap you dont have a lot of guitar solos its really just about the rap, so if a subject plays a major role in the creation of an album, thats not notable because nobody cares about the engineer. A Golden reel from the Ampex corporation, thats just an industry thing not a world thing. I get it. So the definition "The World" is?, well what ever it is-it overides the presumtion of the guidlines, no wiggle room there. We are only concerned with verifiable facts, this is not a popularity contest. The fact of the matter is you dont give passes to composers who's work is written about in internationally published trademags, you won't give that pass to engineers of "good" rap albums even if they play the guitar solo in the sony pictures film, people only "listen" to the guitar solo, doesn't count. It has been worthwhile to learn about anti deleationist manifesto's and waivers for guidlines that have been met because of misunderstood presumtions derived from follwing such guidlines, its the pass from the Hockey guy that we are looking for. I am all over it-I am an anti deleationist. No just kidding, working on getting the pass, my new source from the Album Network's Virtually Alternative Magazine is on the way, the company was bought by Clear Channel so I spoke with the editor of the now out of print mag last night in Berlin, Johnathan Rosen, he is sending me a copy of the magazine, it might come to late for this article, just have to appeal when all sources lined up all propper like. Thank you for taking the time sifting thru this crap, I have learned tonnes. Do you guys think you could throw me a bone as to how to make the article not read like resume? you guys rock and are totally professional. Remember never presume that I am anti-deleationist, I don't pass on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My opologies, I almost went over the edge there. WP GNG needs to be met, slow learner. --Fred berns (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive changed my mind we should just get rid of this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred berns (talk • contribs) 09:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A non-charting, single market, non-major release such as this fails to meet the notability criteria outlined at WP:NALBUMS -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never played professionally, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT or WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. the sources advanced have been examined and don't appeart to cut the mustard. Keep votes by assertion carry very lightle weight in contrast Spartaz Humbug! 02:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. The subject is nonnotable, as it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, or any major reviews or a wide theatrical release.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Island (documentary), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of the Underground: The Dramatic Journey of UGK, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss & Tail: The Hollywood Jumpoff, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Gibson (film director) for other articles created from this bid. ThemFromSpace 15:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. Web content (actually, supposed future web content) with no assertation of notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Web series currently in production. Fails WP:WEB. No references. WP:CRYSTAL also applies. The Interior(Talk) 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recently recreated article, the references that I have access to are basically passing mentions. His relationships to other notable people do not confer notability to the subject. Bringing to AFD for additional input. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find one source that looked reasonable. It's in Italian, but Google Translate made me think it _might_ be applicable. I could find nothing else so WP:N doesn't seem to be met.
That said, the claims here are pretty strong so I suspect I'm missing something as I don't think this is a hoax. Hobit (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails nn, tagged for a year Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company, article created by User:Sabrina_Gage. Her LinkedIn says she works at Comm100: [10] Rchard2scout (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nn dicdef, send to wiktionary if you must, but not notable here Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teenage athlete who has never played senior soccer, and fails both the GNG and the notability criteria of WP:NFOOTY. One in a series of such articles by a newcomer, all of which are appearing at AfD. Ravenswing 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable teenage athlete who has never played senior soccer, and fails both the GNG and the notability criteria of WP:NFOOTY. One in a series of such articles by a newcomer, all of which are appearing at AfD. Ravenswing 16:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability
So it comes back to whether being listed by the CoS website gives notability, or whether being one of many people named in a failed lawsuit gives notability. I'd say no. Scott Mac 15:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology deletion discussions. Will Beback talk 00:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G5), article created by a sock puppet of a banned user. –MuZemike 18:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of an article deleted via PROD. The subject does not meet notability requirements as outlined at WP:NSPORTS in that he has never appeared in a first division/premiere league match. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion left. Davewild (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any sources on Google about "Grenville Anderson", other than one about him being the vice president of a company. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has remained unpatrolled for over three weeks because neither I nor anyone else can decide whether it meets our criteria for inclusion. The community should decide. Kudpung (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So again I ask: Had anyone actually bothered to look?
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, reads like a press-release or an advertisement. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is a rough consensus that the article meets the notability guideline and with the argument that the article falls under BLP1E having been answered by some of those arguing to keep leaving no overriding policy reason for deletion, I am closing as keep. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly fails notability because all or most of the references are dubious, either not mentioning the subject at all, or do not meet WP:RS. I'm not even sure if this is about a real person or a character in a movie of TV show. Kudpung (talk) 11:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questional notability, little to no third-party references, apparently created by the singer/actress herself. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per notability at WP:MUSIC. Google/Google Books confirms it exists, but not much more other than an Allmusic review. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable online content that has no independent reliable sources. I made a quick search for any third-party coverage and couldn't find any. I don't believe this meets notability criteria. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-Feildmaster (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of roads in Toronto. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, not an important street (though a few important places are located at intersections with other roads, some of which are notable). ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N; no verifiable references included. Article's only content is a plot summary. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. This does not prevent a consensus being reached elsewhere to merge/redirect to another article. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last AFD was no consensus because some editors thought sources were sufficient. The sourcing, however, is limited to press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost nothing checks out - did not compete at the 80, 84, 88, 92 or 96 Olympics for GBR in any athletics events - see here for an example. Chicago Marathon article lists a Japanese runner as the winner in 86. Given the name is spelt two different ways, I'm not going to waste any time trying to sort this out. Created by a single edit editor. Likely hoax. The-Pope (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary/thesaurus. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Davewild (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unencylopedic -- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - duplicate on implausible variant spelling. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a misspelled name of Wes Shoemyer. The page has existed since july 2006. Deletion rather than merge makes sense in this case. Apparently the info is grossly wrong. Outback the koala (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot establish any notable for this company. No gnews/gscholar hits on it.
Many of the references are in fact links to wikipedia articles. Only one of them seems to mention the subject directly but even then it's a series of slides from a presentation and the subject is only mentioned in passing. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 04:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One brief mention is the only independent coverage of this org that exists. Fails WP:ORG because there is no substantial coverage in reliable media. Dbratland (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Shitō-ryū. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An un encyclopaedic list of martial techniques without any sourcing to justify notability Dwanyewest (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Kyokushin kaikan. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 06:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an un encyclopaedic list of martial arts techniques without verfication why they are notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Courcelles 01:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an un encyclopaedic list of non notable medallist on a non notable competition Dwanyewest (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG because there is no significant coverage of this group in any independent, reliable news media, books, or web sites. Dbratland (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not notable per WP:NALBUM. no confirmed title, tracklist or release date. completely unreferenced... Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mhiji 02:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only references are MySpace and Sony's own website. While she does appear to have had two releases on Columbia Nashville, one was a digital-only EP and the other was released only at Best Buy. Thorough searching of Google News turned up only an interview and no other reliable sources. It's a stretch to say that she meets the "two albums" criterion of WP:BAND simply because they were such limited releases (and one wasn't even physical), and it's even more of a stretch to say she meets WP:GNG given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. there doesn't seem to be anything worth merging Spartaz Humbug! 03:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to be copied straight from the other Wikipedia article Armstrongism. Also, there are no references, and needs a fair bit of wikifying as well. Minimac (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. you don't have to delete an article to prune it of POV issues but there is no consensus to to anyting here. ONEEVENT may be an issue but plenty of keep voters addressed the point and there are lots of sources. An artiel on the death of is sually the compromise between BLP1E/ONEEVENT and GNG anyway so overall I'm not seeing an outcome and relisting certainly won't make it clearer Spartaz Humbug! 03:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Simply put, this is a suicide - tragic but not notable. A bright lad at MIT took his own life.
Looking at the "impact" of this, to assess its noteworthiness, I see three things:
In short this is a sad thing, but despite good hard work re-writing it from the COATRACK it was, there's no evidence of significance whatsoever. Scott Mac 01:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. the sources have been assessed and noone has challenged that te mentions were not in depth Spartaz Humbug! 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article on a company. All references are either from their own website or from the website of organizations which are very closely related. None are from independent sources, which is what WP:GNG requires. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. SnottyWong confabulate 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a rather esoteric historic "source". The article labels it as a "tentative" name for the document. It seems the matter isn't settled yet, and therefore may not be appropriate for a WP article. SnottyWong confabulate 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [24]. none of the sources in the article are third party. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable Danish author. possible autobiography. Non of the sources provided by the author on the talk page suggest actual notability Fails both criteria of WP:ANYBIO and all five of WP:AUTHOR. The awards he claims to have received are also not notable and there are no independent third hand sources about his biography they all go back to his personal webpages. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. Non-notable organization, simply no significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. we wouldn't usually merge an unsourced article and there is no consensus that churches are intrinsically notable so the policy based arguments are the ones supporting deletion Spartaz Humbug! 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally built by the creator at the AFC space and then subsequently moved to the mainspace (although I think this was an accident). The church itself isn't notable and other than the orphanage which it ran, there is nothing big about it. Maybe a page on the orphanage should be created but the church itself just isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. why was this relisted? Spartaz Humbug! 03:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear particularly notable in current form, reads largely as a marketing advertisement. Bitmapped (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created via a paid-editing project on elance.com. He has a lot of credits to his name, but a close look reveals that none of these films are at all significant. Coverage in reliable sources is scant; in-depth coverage is nil. None of the awards are important enough to evidence notability.
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter to the President, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Island (documentary), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kings of the Underground: The Dramatic Journey of UGK, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss & Tail: The Hollywood Jumpoff for other articles created from this bid. ThemFromSpace 15:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Mineral County, West Virginia. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear notable. If article is kept, should be generalized to planning commissions in West Virginia rather than just Mineral County. Bitmapped (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 07:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are just galleries of rowing oars. No prose content. Few, in any references. Wikipedia isn't a picture gallery. GrapedApe (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Rowing is an Olympic sport and blade designs are the standard way to identify boats and do not change often - unlike say Soccer or Rugby jerseys - this seems a perfectly reasonable article, though it needs better citations to verify the information. Note this is the list of National colours CF List_of_international_auto_racing_colors - not a list of club colours. Have those voting for delete parsed even the article title. So even as a dry bob I go for keep. Arachrah (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fail WP:N, and CSD A7. There are no references, and few links to this page. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 16:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is just a discussion of the meaning and use of a word. Jaque Hammer (talk) 23:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source #1 is trivial, other three sources are trivial. Very few hits on Google and Gnews. Last AFD was no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-charting single is not notable; fails WP:NSONG. Dolovis (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Davewild (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable "bit part" actress WuhWuzDat 19:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band, whose biggest claim to notability is a cover version of a single song. WuhWuzDat 15:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable, fails WP:BAND. Mattg82 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTCC privateer that have made no appearance in one a single season and since then disappeared, does not do anything to assert notability. Donnie Park (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:A few minor sources but nothing to make it a notable organisation. Mattg82 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
player fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
player fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
player fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no ATP Challenger titles, not a world top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 13:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:NALBUMS. could not find any coverage for this EP. [31]. its band is also being nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beautiful Small Machines LibStar (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, only reference is a self-reference by the publisher of the magazine, who is also apparently the creator of this article, which has been deleted previously as VERGOMEDIA. First Light (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to For sale by owner. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Prod contested by IP that seems to want to use the article to advertise Vente-privee.com (which has questionable notability itself.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2011 Internationaux de Nouvelle-Calédonie. Redirect which has already been done. Davewild (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not a notable enough event - not a criterion of WP notability for tennis players to appear in qualifying for an ATP Challenger event Mayumashu (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 20:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, no Davis Cup matches played, not a top 3 junior or junior grand slam titlest Mayumashu (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn with apologies - I missed that he has indeed won two challenger titles Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 09:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:Notability for tennis players (no ATP Tour main draw matches played, no Challenger titles, not a top three junior, not a junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG. Only reference is another wiki. First Light (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a horribly-written article for a site that seems notable only around here only because of the vileness of their attacks. There has never been an article about ED in any major news source annd no one out side of a few internet communities who have been attacked by them knlow who they are. Orthodoxbush (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]