The result was delete. Note that at the time of closure, no independent sources whatever had been added, as was called for in the debate.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Subject fails WP:BIO, and there is no attempt to assert notability. Google hits are from closely related religious sites with seemignly no independent secondary sources. Amazon turns up no hits for his name or books- unsurprisingly as they are published by his church. Farosdaughter 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Hu12 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Concert review masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This is better off on a fan site. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No sources that are not affiliated with product that establishes notability. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. PeaceNT 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Finishing unfinished nom made by anon; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Someguy1221 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All versions of this article (and the talk page) contained medical advice, so there is no non-advising version of the article to revert back to. Deletion of the article's edit history would probably violate GFDL, as content would exist without giving due credit.
Andjam
23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. PeaceNT 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable teen modeling competition. A paltry number of reliable sources mention it, none actually discuss it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 (author blanked), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the parent organization of the Kingdom of Hightower, whose article was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower). As with the Kingdom of Hightower article, I've been unable to locate reliable independent sources to establish this organization's notability ( [3]). I feel the article in its current state falls short of notability criteria and suggest deletion per WP:ORG. -- Muchness 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
KEEP - ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE???? You people make me laugh. I've never seen such ridiculous rhetoric in all of my life. Merging the page is mentioned in WP:ORG. I've been archiving all this nonsense as reference of your lack of notability so do what you want. Delete yourselves while your at it. Adios and good luck. Anastasia the Innocent 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete There is little to merge, and a redirect would likely be confusing. The article lacks reliable sources, and an encyclopedic assertion of notability, and might well have been speedy-deleted under CSD A7 in any event. Xoloz 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a high school music programme. It isn't notable enough to deserve its own article, and it is filled with peacock terms (I removed a lot of them before I decided the article should be deleted). It seems to exist merely to praise the music programme. DearPrudence 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). She's a person with a blog and a MySpace page. Kurt Shaped Box 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There seems to be general consensus that the gentleman is borderline notable; however, his range of activities precludes an easy, accurate merge. There is little support for outright deletion, and no call for it on policy grounds (as the article is well-sourced), so no consensus is the only feasible outcome. Xoloz 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I was going to nominate this article as delete, except that when I had the chance to do so, the result came out as no-consensus
Nominated for the fact that...
1) he was in a short lived boyband that was less than seriously notable than say Westlife, therefore at that time, none of these members were seriously notable enough, not even Ziggy, to have his own article as until Big Borther, since the split, he has done nothing serious notable
2) There is no evidence of his credentials as a music producer, in another words, there are no proff that he is notable as a music producer
3) not considered as a serious favourite to win BB8, as there are contestants who are more considered to be favourittes to win, thats until he wins, (and I pocket millions from my bet) then I wouldn't have any problem for recreation
4) This article tends to mostly state his appearance in Big Brother page where it belongs, therefore when removed, this leaves it as a stub and not enough to justify his own article. Dr Tobias Funke 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also fails WP:MUSIC as a producer and also I am very doubtful that he will pass as an individual member. Willirennen 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. There is little real support here to delete the information. Ultimately, the choice of whether, what content, and the method of merging remains a decision for article talk discussion. There does appear here, however, a tentative consensus that this content should not have a stand-alone article. Xoloz 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced and seems to read as one large trivia section spun off of the main Family Feud page; as such, it also appears to contain a large amount of original research, speculation, and POV Goldrushcavi 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Has been tagged for SOURCES for one year and no one, including me, has found any. Pharmboy 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Hu12 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Happy-melon 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
stuff) 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
" - This section prominently features the game. How many subscribers of EGM saw this? Do you want me to find out which magazine this appears in? Then what? You are going to have to prove that it is not notable. WhisperToMe 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - I will say that EGM should be enough of a third party reliable source to keep this article afloat. Unless there is good reasoning to state that more reliable sources have to be placed in order to prove that this article is notable, then the reasoning of all of the delete votes is flawed.
Let me quote from Wikipedia:Notability: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1 "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.2 "Sources,"3 defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.4 "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5 "
From the quote above, in one section, the article addresses the game directly and gives some detail "in which the young Where's Waldo-looking wizard journeys through the Dursley homestead kicking the crap out of rats, bats, fats (Dudley and Vernon), and, uh, Voldemort. And that's just before Harry learns he's a wizard. " - Harry's Legend is a very simplistic fighting game (One can tell this when he or she downloads the game and plays it), so not a whole lot of text is needed to say that the game is addressed in some detail. No, this isn't a full-fledged review, but the game is described to the readers. The editors state WHY they consider Harry's Legend to be "the most impressive hack we've found," so this satisfies the detail requirement.
- EGM is a published news magazine, and 1UP.com is its affiliate. Therefore it satisfies all three guidelines here. WhisperToMe 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: The author of the EGM article that mentions and describes Harry's Legend wrote his own more-lengthy review of the game on his personal website: http://www.gamespite.net/toastywiki/index.php/Site/HarryPotterForNES (If you look at Parish's profile via 1UP.com, the "personal website" listed in his profile redirects to gamespite, so this IS Parish's website) WhisperToMe 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
EDIT - This may be a hack of "The Waterboy" - Although technically this isn't considered to be a reliable source, this screenshot seems to suggest that "Harry's Legend" is a hack of "The Waterboy" - If this fails AFD, then we can just merge it into an article about "The Waterboy" -
http://www.datacrystal.org/wiki/The_Waterboy
WhisperToMe
15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy deleted by User:GDonato. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No secondary sources given and reads like an ad. No assertion of notability - plenty of other chat tools available. Does not meet the criteria for WP:CORP. → AA ( talk) — 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There are many different versions of the M-16 and AK-47. Trying to generalize the differences is akin to making an article on the difference between Ford cars and Toyota cars. You could make some generaliztions, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic. So the question is this article comparing the AK-47 vs the M-16 (what the title of the article sugests), the AKM vs the M-16a1 (the two main rifles used in the Vietnam War), the AKM vs the M-16a2 (the main versions used in recent conflicts}? To take one example of weight, the AK47 is heavier than the m16 or m16a1 however the AKM is lighter than the m16a2. So should the article say the "AK47" is lighter or heavier than the "M-16"? So on and so on. So I believe it needs to be deleted because by the very nature they cannot be compared since there is no definitive "M-16" or "AK-47 Homersmyid 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Hu12 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. It was the subject of one article on page D23 of the Kansas City Star a few years back, but there appears to be no other coverage, so it does not meet the relevant notability requirements. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete (closed early per WP:SNOW, and meets speedy deletion criterion A7). MastCell Talk 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I couldn't find sources to establish notability. Possible hoax. Previously AfD was closed early as a speedy delete, thus, isn't a candidate for CSD G4. Sancho 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I realize how controversial this is, but it has to be done. The biggest problem, and the primary reason I am nominating it, is the title. Notable is completely subjective. That wording allows for trivial minutiae to be included. List after list could be included of unimportant storms that were "notable" for a minor reason, such as for naming or just a list of storms that affected a certain area. The reason this will be controversial is that it links to over 500 articles, and has over 1500 edits. Indeed, it is one of the oldest continually edited article in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. However, as a user pointed out a few weeks ago, all content on Wikipedia should be notable; the user moved it to List of tropical cyclones, which is also a bad name for it. Additionally, the article seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information loosely connected by the term notable. For example, the South Atlantic section just lists the three only known possible storms in the basin. The Southern Hemisphere section, which was recently deleted, contained a list of a few destructive storms. The true records could be moved to the already existing article called List of tropical cyclone records, which is much better defined than notable. Rather than deleting it entirely, which would get rid of the edits, I propose to userfy it. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Can't determine that Jon A Greenspon been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The subject also doesn't meet the criteria for politicians at WP:BIO. Sancho 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep; merger proposed. Chaser - T 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Itself is not notable, not possible to be more than a stub, suggest merger with Human Rights Campaign. Wooyi Talk to me? 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect per GFDL. The page has already been merged editorially; therefore, GFDL requires redirect to preserve content attribution history. Xoloz 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about a local folk song, and contains its full text. Delete, (or if the song is reasonably notable, transwiki to Wikisource). Shalom Hello 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Hu12 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Expired {{ prod}} but an earlier prod had been removed so this should really go through AfD. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, no external sources at all. The Wikipedia citation of the day is WP:HOLE. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, nonadmin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on a morning show at a radio station. Tagged for notability since May 2007. No third-party sources, just a whole whack of myspace pages and the radio station's page. There is no assertion of the show having any notability outside of Albuquerque. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced article, fails WP:RS and WP:V (and WP:LIVING maybe?). Only asserted notability is that this group won recognition in their home town of Sacramento - but there aren't even sources for this. Most edits were by WP:SPAs and numbered IPs, so it's also WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was blown up. DS 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources to verify the "large cult following", no Google hits, some parts like about the "animal rights activists" make it seem like a hoax. Reinis talk 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, without prejudice to reliably-sourced mentions elsewhere, whereupon history undeletion and redirect may be appropriate. Despite verifiable sources, the consensus below determines that the subject simply is not notable enough for an article (failing WP:N). This is a determination within the prerogative of any AfD. Xoloz 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
More ScientologyCruft, fails WP:BIO. The entire basis for this person's claim to notability (that he was supposedly L. Ron Hubbard's chosen successor but got screwed out of it) comes only from rumours and gossip from an anti-Scn personal page (xenu.net) and a book by Hubbard Jr. whose own article says he retracted and redacted his claims in that book. Gets only 250 unique Ghits and not all of those are even this same person. wikipediatrix 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Hu12 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on yet another band, created by a single-purpose account, who looks like he had no interest in providing any external sources whatsoever, and no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus (keep)—no new comments since relisting, and both sides have developed reasonable arguments. — Deckill er 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Record label article with no independent external sources, thus no outside assertion of notability. No verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as a blatant and self-evident hoax. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax, someone with username Leslielohan created this. I'd speedy if it fell under one of the categories. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic jumble of random phrases. Hopelessly biased towards the present day and to "Anglo-Saxon" political figures. Bigdaddy1981 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have left a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics about this. Circeus 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Compare this list with 2 other lists:
Comment. All we need is an auto-updating 'rank' formula. However, we also need these cases to be referenced...it could be a problem separating true and false cases if we don't maintain standards. So, this could be 'kept and improved' but ideas on how to do so are needed. 131.96.70.164 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like a random list of events involving the Italians and the Kurdish people or Chinese and the Kurdish people. Intended scope on "A-B relation" articles are diplomatic relations as it is with Turkish-American relations, Franco-American relations and etc. Kurds fortunately/unfortunately do not have a country to have diplomatic relations -- Cat chi? 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established and page needs wikification even if it is established. The external link included has very weak notability support. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as an entirely unsourceable article full of original research. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and absurd verifiability problems. Has anyone read the references section? The article practically nominates itself for deletion, to quote the article: It is difficult and nearly impossible to find referances to Sinhala colloquial slang in any form of formal literature availble in the Internet. The sooner we get rid of this the better. Burntsauce 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Neil ム 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Book made by stapling paper together and writing/drawing on it with friends. Non-notable term that lacks verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ilove friensship books!!!!
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
nonnotable musicians `' Míkka 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus Although the article lacks direct citations, for the moment, the surrounding Wikipedia articles on the television show provide sufficient evidence to meet the basic needs of WP:V. Beyond that, this discussion cannot agree on the best result, with some commenters apparently more concerned about this class of articles in general, than this example in particular. Xoloz 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DELETE. Child actor in minor recurring role. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all. Singu larity 03:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Member of back-up group for Japanese band Do As Infinity. (The back-up group has no article of its own, just a redirect to DAI.) Article contains no reliable sources as references and almost no sourced content at all. I am adding the articles for four of the other five members of the back-up group to this nomination:
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete hoax. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax. I can't find any online sources concerning this person's existence, despite claiming to be "one of the best comedians of all time". Hut 8.5 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
not notable yet professional wrestler & model Mukadderat 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a 1-line description and a list of features, a classic definition of an ad. Before it was edited down (in several stages), its text was more clearly advertising. The prior AfD reached no consensus, and the issues raised then (notability, sources, alexa rank) have not been addressed since. No independent references are cited. No particular indication of notability is present. Has been tagged for speedy delete twice, each tag removed. DES (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP w/ strong recommendation to redirect. Speedy close given the resemblance to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Johnson (Rent), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Marquez (RENT), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Collins (Rent character). - Nabla 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am not the original nominator, but User:BaronessofBud nominated it, and never finished the nomination. In the edit summary she wrote: "the article is poorly written, and all information is available in the RENT page. It is unecessary and undeftly executed, so it should be deleted." — Music Maker 5376 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, without prejudice to creation of a properly sourced and BLP-compliant version. Walton One 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This subject fails WP:BIO. He is a colorful local character who writes a lot of letters to a university newspaper, and has had one human interest feature written about him in the same paper. While I am sure he is well known around town, most college towns have at least one if not several characters around that are just as known locally. That does not make them notable enough for an inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Crockspot 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable soccer team. Unreferenced article, unable to find verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. No prejudice towards the new article ( Musical depictions of Superman) being nominated. Or not. It's up to you guys! Neil ム 10:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like this falls foul of
WP:NOT#INFO in as much as the inclusion criteria are pretty subjective. Also has a serious issue with
WP:VERIFY and
WP:OR.
EyeSerene
TALK
15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge to the artist. (SPAs opinions were discounted.) Xoloz 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The organization doesn't seem notable. No refs save its homepage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Nihiltres( t. l) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Patent nonsense. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. Neil ム 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Local radio talk show host in Phoenix; sole claim to fame seems to be extremely minor controversy (I could find one story in Google News Archives and that was in the Phoenix newspaper) claiming that an AP reporter was engaged in "boinkage" with her boss. Don Imus he ain't. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable neologism, a portmanteau of Somali and English. No coverage in third party sources. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable person; obvious conflict of interest. I am also implicitly nominating the image contained in the article. Contested speedy A7. Shalom Hello 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was invalid nomination because no deletion rationale has been offered and all the comments are keep. If someone desires a proper AfD may be filed later. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted, no real content. No prejudice towards a real article being created, explaining the channel's notability, and providing references. Neil ム 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
this is a duplicate article, correct one already exists here TeleAsty — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeMan5 ( talk • contribs) 2007/08/09 17:03:47
I am proposing one of these is speedily deleted as duplicates and redirected. I am also proposing the remaining article be considered for AfD as non-notable and unsourced. -- KTC 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. One "keep" is from an employee, the other is not convincing. Neil ム 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, unsourced, probably already included on other Harry Potter related pages. Guest9999 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into the season's main article. Xoloz 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Davnel03 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There may be room for an article written on this subject. This article, however, is a graphic display (only partially-sourced) intended, apparently, to simplify the presentation of information. As such, it is arguably speedy-deleteable under CSD A3 (articles with only tables, and no supporting text. That articles must be written is an assumption implicit to the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia. It is also worth observing the inherent POV nature of the present page (Torture and Warrantless Wire-tapping are the only Civil Liberties issues these days?!?!), but this decision is taken on the basis that this content does not constitute an "article", but a pure pictorial display, which Wikipedia plainly is not. Policy demands the removal of this content, and strength of argument for deletion succeeds for this reason. Of course, the composition of a written article on this topic is a separate question, in which many commenters below see some merit. Xoloz 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article does not seem to be appropriate per Wikipedia standards. It is unreferenced and serves only as a voting guide which Wikipedia is not. Metros 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result was Withdrawn after most of the conerns were fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no context, unreferenced, other problems evident. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this page for deletion because I don't feel it's really appropriate for an Encyclopedia article, and I'm not sure if even a redirect is warranted. Since similar AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarTrek.com were a bit contentious, I do feel this does at least merit some discussion. Yes, Harry Potter is notable. But do these sites meet the criteria found at WP:WEB? The most I can see is possibly some domain name claims for trademarks, and that's not even in this article. FrozenPurpleCube 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator recommended keep. Initial nomination did not have reason given. Non-admin close. KTC 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Incomplete Afd from previous editor, restarting: Since the Afd tag has been raised on the article, it seems best to finish the process properly. Despite obvious cleanup issues, I see a notability claim based on solid web hits including: media coverage (the BBC among others), longevity (32 years), and growing participation (855, plus 5000 spectators) and money raised (over £66000) from the event during 2006. Accordingly, I recommend Keep. Michael Devore 06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Author contested prod for no reason. I still have the same issues - not notable. Seems to be a way of getting that Craigmile person's name on the web. Postcard Cathy 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was
So the walls came tumbling down
And your love's a blown out candle
All is gone and it seems too hard to handle
Chiquitita, tell me the truth
There is no way you can deny it
I see that you're oh so sad, so quiet
— Caknuck 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources that indicate that parodies and references to ABBA in the media is a notable topic. Otto4711 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician - no independent evidence of notability provided other than a MySpace page. Reads like self-promotional spam. Mattinbgn/ talk 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No clue. User:BaronessofBud started the Afd - I'm just completing it for completeness' sake SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Dumott Schunard
The result was Keep. Walton One 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this author. Otto4711 03:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was purge. DS 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - 99.99999999% certain this is a hoax. The U.S. never had troops stationed anywhere near Hanoi during the Vietnam War, "Agn-Dailan" is not a Vietnamese nor French word, the French did not have Foreign Legion troops in Hanoi in 1970, the French squadron leaders name is Doremee (a doe, a deer, a female deer...get it?), the Marines don't take hostages, the French hostages were whipped in the town square of Hanoi (righttttt), and the only references to it are this and wikimirrors.-- Nobunaga24 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no need to salt at this time. — Caknuck 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to have significant coverage by reliable (re: non-MySpace) secondary sources. Prod removed by Sleepv1, one of two accounts that have contributed almost exclusively to this article. 17Drew 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There certainly might be reason to revisit this decision, if additional sources are found. The consensus below is that the person fails WP:PROF, and is thus not notable. Xoloz 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article establishes a bit of notability, but I don't believe it establishes enough. If this person is a professor there, then many have written books, it's not notable in and of itself. Wizardman 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was I went and merged everything into kickflip, which I probably just should've done in the first place. Wizardman 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I can't see how this would be notable outside of skateboarding circles. Certainly this information could be merged into Kickflip, but no reason to stand on its own. Wizardman 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep — Caknuck 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Wikipedia-related website. Obviously does not meet WP:WEB notability criteria; might not have even been created were it not for its connection to Wikipedia. Creator has expressed the concern that it might belong at Wikipedia:Tools. I do not think this article itself would be of much use there, but if someone would like to create a tools page for this and thinks that the current article could be of assistance in any way, it could be userfied. Savidan 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - this evaluation explicitly devalues the discussion before TerrierFan's expansion - before that, there was a probably "delete as non-notable" dominant thought position, now notability appears to be established. Cheers, Wily D 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Stub elementary school article with no assertion of notability. Nyttend 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree - It may be a stub, however educational institutions aren't exactly expendable. WP isn't paper. -- Mnemnoch 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Would have been an expired prod, but I thought it needed a little more attention. Article has been in a rudimentary state for months despite tags seeking improvement. NawlinWiki 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Had this article been modified and more interesting purpose applied to it, I could see where it might not be an AfD. The information can be merged elsewhere and most things on this page are redirects anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemnoch ( talk • contribs)
DGG ( talk) 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Week Keep as per Zginder. Harlowraman 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable ( WP:BIO) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom and no other users supporting deletion. Non-admin close. cab 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I know this page is trying to say something, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Ideogram 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Block (North China Craton). -- Ideogram 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep - Definitely looks like a notable geologic object, just need to get some people from the geography wikiproject to clean it up and make it encyclopaedic -- L u c id 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. -- Ideogram 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom and no other users supporting deletion. Non-admin close. cab 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I know this article is trying to say something, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Ideogram 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North China craton. -- Ideogram 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Seems like a notable geologic object, just needs to be made more appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and made more human readable -- L u c id 01:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nomination. Admins please close. -- Ideogram 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This page is "how to" guide on dealing with Pakistani emigration procedures. WP:NOT violation at the very least. Kww 00:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The article still contains no independent, reliable sources. Sandstein 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an unreleased fan-game, an apparent homage/unofficial sequal to the King's Quest series. While it's rife with good intentions, it just doesn't seem all that notable, aside from a cease and desist order from Vivendi - and if cease-and-desist orders are qualifications for notability, then Action Jackson IV's dating history should be a featured article :-D Beyond self-published claims of being "one of the largest fangame projects", I can't quite see how this is more than crystal ballery. It is, however, a rather well-written article, not quite as self-promoting as one would expect, and perhaps being seven years in the making counts for something. Action Jackson IV 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as spam (CSD G11). Closed early per snow and consensus for speedy. Nihiltres( t. l) 03:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
expired uncontested prod, but has been around for a year with several editors, so afd is the place: fails notability, WP:CORP and is not verified. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. An operator of 5 R-44 helicopters, with nothing found to establish notability of this run-of-the-mill general aviation company. Russavia 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep This article meets the criteria for notability in WP:CORP through at least two independent, reliable, secondary sources: Scanair and Trønder-Avisa (in Norwegian). Arsenikk 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. It is a small charter outfit of Puerto Rico, with a single bizjet and 2 small helicopters. Nothing found which established the notability of this company. Russavia 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:VERIFY, no third party sources. It may also be spam, but I'm not sure of that. Jackaranga 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. PeaceNT 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon. No assertion of notability in the article and my internet search did not turn up any reliable sources regarding it. Chunky Rice 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete due to no evidence of notability or reliable sources. — TKD:: Talk 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article has no assertion of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi ( talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 19:57:49
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A Google search of the book & its publisher does not seem to establish notability [38]. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Bikini contest held in China. The People's Daily prints photos of the models who compete in this event, but no one seems to have actually done an article on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect for GFDL compliance as information from this article had been substantially merged into STS-115 prior to nomination and to retain any information for future reference. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
To standardize shuttle missions, (see STS-116, STS-117, STS-118) I have merged Timeline of STS-115 into STS-115, and this page can be deleted. It has been orphaned since March 2007. The only link to the page is STS-115 Timeline which can also be removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space_missions is working to standardize all the mission articles into the same format, so the timeline should remain with the mission page, not as a separate article. While STS-115 will need pruning, this orphaned article can probably be purged. Notices placed on Talk:STS-115, the Project talk page, and on Talk:STS-118 (current flight). Ariel♥ Gold 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Understood, and of course, I knew that copying and pasting entire articles is a no-no, but basically this is a list of activities as stated from NASA's end of day Status Reports, nothing changed in what the crew did, or how they did it, so it makes it quite difficult to even attempt to "rewrite" it. It was just a mistake on my part for not thinking it through, again my most abject apologies. I'd appreciate if someone could handle the redirect, and remove the AFD notice, and feel free to remove my addition, and I'll just try and find a way to re-word everything, without losing all the NASA URL references while doing it. So much for my first foray into AfD, lol. Ariel♥ Gold 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and split to Lodestar and Lodestar (disambiguation)-- Atlan ( talk) 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is mainly used for advertising from all kinds of companies with Lodestar in their names. Stripped of said advertising, what is left is the dictionary definition of lodestar and two internal links ( Loadstar and Lodestar (band)) that don't really require a disambiguation page. Whatever relevant information the article holds besides that, can already be found in more suitable articles. Atlan ( talk) 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have created Lodestar (disambiguation) and moved the relevant other uses there. Please judge the article on what is left. Like I said, I don't think the article can be expanded beyond its dictionary definition.-- Atlan ( talk) 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally speedied as a neologism, which is not speedy-able. Anyone think it's notable? Daniel Case 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Marked as speedy but it does make an assertion of notability. But is it one that merits reworking into an article? Daniel Case 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete As it was only created yesterday I was going to plaster it with tags and try to categorize it and see what happens over the course of the week. I'll still do that but as it stands now there are no assertations about notability (sorry what's provided is not notable), claimed but unprovided sources and frankly the prose style is a little breathless and some of the claims extremely suspect. I call WP:NN and WP:OR. I will change my vote if the issues are properly addressed. Peter Rehse 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, no assertion of notability Jackaranga 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 16 August 2007 (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}} . |
nn Harry Potter fansite. Alexa is a modest 13,838, but how is an article about a fansite suitable for an encyclopedia, when there are hundreds of articles on the harry potter universe. Article is somewhat spammy and very non-npov, no assertion of notability. Biggspowd 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry if you are getting tired of me, but I found summervillejournalscene.com [46] had veritaserum.com mentioned in an article. Thanks -- 209.102.152.185 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Laura reply
The result was delete. Note that at the time of closure, no independent sources whatever had been added, as was called for in the debate.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Subject fails WP:BIO, and there is no attempt to assert notability. Google hits are from closely related religious sites with seemignly no independent secondary sources. Amazon turns up no hits for his name or books- unsurprisingly as they are published by his church. Farosdaughter 23:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Hu12 04:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Concert review masquerading as an encyclopedia article. This is better off on a fan site. cholmes75 ( chit chat) 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. No sources that are not affiliated with product that establishes notability. -- Hdt83 Chat 07:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. PeaceNT 01:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Finishing unfinished nom made by anon; I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 03:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Someguy1221 01:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
All versions of this article (and the talk page) contained medical advice, so there is no non-advising version of the article to revert back to. Deletion of the article's edit history would probably violate GFDL, as content would exist without giving due credit.
Andjam
23:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. PeaceNT 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable teen modeling competition. A paltry number of reliable sources mention it, none actually discuss it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 16:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 (author blanked), non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is the parent organization of the Kingdom of Hightower, whose article was recently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom of Hightower). As with the Kingdom of Hightower article, I've been unable to locate reliable independent sources to establish this organization's notability ( [3]). I feel the article in its current state falls short of notability criteria and suggest deletion per WP:ORG. -- Muchness 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
KEEP - ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE???? You people make me laugh. I've never seen such ridiculous rhetoric in all of my life. Merging the page is mentioned in WP:ORG. I've been archiving all this nonsense as reference of your lack of notability so do what you want. Delete yourselves while your at it. Adios and good luck. Anastasia the Innocent 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete There is little to merge, and a redirect would likely be confusing. The article lacks reliable sources, and an encyclopedic assertion of notability, and might well have been speedy-deleted under CSD A7 in any event. Xoloz 13:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a high school music programme. It isn't notable enough to deserve its own article, and it is filled with peacock terms (I removed a lot of them before I decided the article should be deleted). It seems to exist merely to praise the music programme. DearPrudence 22:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to pass Wikipedia:Notability (people). She's a person with a blog and a MySpace page. Kurt Shaped Box 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. There seems to be general consensus that the gentleman is borderline notable; however, his range of activities precludes an easy, accurate merge. There is little support for outright deletion, and no call for it on policy grounds (as the article is well-sourced), so no consensus is the only feasible outcome. Xoloz 13:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I was going to nominate this article as delete, except that when I had the chance to do so, the result came out as no-consensus
Nominated for the fact that...
1) he was in a short lived boyband that was less than seriously notable than say Westlife, therefore at that time, none of these members were seriously notable enough, not even Ziggy, to have his own article as until Big Borther, since the split, he has done nothing serious notable
2) There is no evidence of his credentials as a music producer, in another words, there are no proff that he is notable as a music producer
3) not considered as a serious favourite to win BB8, as there are contestants who are more considered to be favourittes to win, thats until he wins, (and I pocket millions from my bet) then I wouldn't have any problem for recreation
4) This article tends to mostly state his appearance in Big Brother page where it belongs, therefore when removed, this leaves it as a stub and not enough to justify his own article. Dr Tobias Funke 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Also fails WP:MUSIC as a producer and also I am very doubtful that he will pass as an individual member. Willirennen 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. There is little real support here to delete the information. Ultimately, the choice of whether, what content, and the method of merging remains a decision for article talk discussion. There does appear here, however, a tentative consensus that this content should not have a stand-alone article. Xoloz 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is unsourced and seems to read as one large trivia section spun off of the main Family Feud page; as such, it also appears to contain a large amount of original research, speculation, and POV Goldrushcavi 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources can be found to establish notability. Has been tagged for SOURCES for one year and no one, including me, has found any. Pharmboy 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Hu12 04:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Happy-melon 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
stuff) 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
" - This section prominently features the game. How many subscribers of EGM saw this? Do you want me to find out which magazine this appears in? Then what? You are going to have to prove that it is not notable. WhisperToMe 02:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment - I will say that EGM should be enough of a third party reliable source to keep this article afloat. Unless there is good reasoning to state that more reliable sources have to be placed in order to prove that this article is notable, then the reasoning of all of the delete votes is flawed.
Let me quote from Wikipedia:Notability: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1 "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.2 "Sources,"3 defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.4 "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5 "
From the quote above, in one section, the article addresses the game directly and gives some detail "in which the young Where's Waldo-looking wizard journeys through the Dursley homestead kicking the crap out of rats, bats, fats (Dudley and Vernon), and, uh, Voldemort. And that's just before Harry learns he's a wizard. " - Harry's Legend is a very simplistic fighting game (One can tell this when he or she downloads the game and plays it), so not a whole lot of text is needed to say that the game is addressed in some detail. No, this isn't a full-fledged review, but the game is described to the readers. The editors state WHY they consider Harry's Legend to be "the most impressive hack we've found," so this satisfies the detail requirement.
- EGM is a published news magazine, and 1UP.com is its affiliate. Therefore it satisfies all three guidelines here. WhisperToMe 02:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment: The author of the EGM article that mentions and describes Harry's Legend wrote his own more-lengthy review of the game on his personal website: http://www.gamespite.net/toastywiki/index.php/Site/HarryPotterForNES (If you look at Parish's profile via 1UP.com, the "personal website" listed in his profile redirects to gamespite, so this IS Parish's website) WhisperToMe 03:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
EDIT - This may be a hack of "The Waterboy" - Although technically this isn't considered to be a reliable source, this screenshot seems to suggest that "Harry's Legend" is a hack of "The Waterboy" - If this fails AFD, then we can just merge it into an article about "The Waterboy" -
http://www.datacrystal.org/wiki/The_Waterboy
WhisperToMe
15:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy deleted by User:GDonato. Carlossuarez46 23:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No secondary sources given and reads like an ad. No assertion of notability - plenty of other chat tools available. Does not meet the criteria for WP:CORP. → AA ( talk) — 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 23:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
There are many different versions of the M-16 and AK-47. Trying to generalize the differences is akin to making an article on the difference between Ford cars and Toyota cars. You could make some generaliztions, but it wouldn't be encyclopedic. So the question is this article comparing the AK-47 vs the M-16 (what the title of the article sugests), the AKM vs the M-16a1 (the two main rifles used in the Vietnam War), the AKM vs the M-16a2 (the main versions used in recent conflicts}? To take one example of weight, the AK47 is heavier than the m16 or m16a1 however the AKM is lighter than the m16a2. So should the article say the "AK47" is lighter or heavier than the "M-16"? So on and so on. So I believe it needs to be deleted because by the very nature they cannot be compared since there is no definitive "M-16" or "AK-47 Homersmyid 21:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was DELETE. Hu12 04:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company. It was the subject of one article on page D23 of the Kansas City Star a few years back, but there appears to be no other coverage, so it does not meet the relevant notability requirements. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete (closed early per WP:SNOW, and meets speedy deletion criterion A7). MastCell Talk 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I couldn't find sources to establish notability. Possible hoax. Previously AfD was closed early as a speedy delete, thus, isn't a candidate for CSD G4. Sancho 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I realize how controversial this is, but it has to be done. The biggest problem, and the primary reason I am nominating it, is the title. Notable is completely subjective. That wording allows for trivial minutiae to be included. List after list could be included of unimportant storms that were "notable" for a minor reason, such as for naming or just a list of storms that affected a certain area. The reason this will be controversial is that it links to over 500 articles, and has over 1500 edits. Indeed, it is one of the oldest continually edited article in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject. However, as a user pointed out a few weeks ago, all content on Wikipedia should be notable; the user moved it to List of tropical cyclones, which is also a bad name for it. Additionally, the article seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information loosely connected by the term notable. For example, the South Atlantic section just lists the three only known possible storms in the basin. The Southern Hemisphere section, which was recently deleted, contained a list of a few destructive storms. The true records could be moved to the already existing article called List of tropical cyclone records, which is much better defined than notable. Rather than deleting it entirely, which would get rid of the edits, I propose to userfy it. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Can't determine that Jon A Greenspon been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The subject also doesn't meet the criteria for politicians at WP:BIO. Sancho 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep; merger proposed. Chaser - T 03:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Itself is not notable, not possible to be more than a stub, suggest merger with Human Rights Campaign. Wooyi Talk to me? 16:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect per GFDL. The page has already been merged editorially; therefore, GFDL requires redirect to preserve content attribution history. Xoloz 13:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is about a local folk song, and contains its full text. Delete, (or if the song is reasonably notable, transwiki to Wikisource). Shalom Hello 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Hu12 04:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Procedural nomination. Expired {{ prod}} but an earlier prod had been removed so this should really go through AfD. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 02:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 01:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability, no external sources at all. The Wikipedia citation of the day is WP:HOLE. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, nonadmin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps• Review?) 03:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on a morning show at a radio station. Tagged for notability since May 2007. No third-party sources, just a whole whack of myspace pages and the radio station's page. There is no assertion of the show having any notability outside of Albuquerque. Fails WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced article, fails WP:RS and WP:V (and WP:LIVING maybe?). Only asserted notability is that this group won recognition in their home town of Sacramento - but there aren't even sources for this. Most edits were by WP:SPAs and numbered IPs, so it's also WP:VSCA. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 16:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was blown up. DS 04:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources to verify the "large cult following", no Google hits, some parts like about the "animal rights activists" make it seem like a hoax. Reinis talk 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, without prejudice to reliably-sourced mentions elsewhere, whereupon history undeletion and redirect may be appropriate. Despite verifiable sources, the consensus below determines that the subject simply is not notable enough for an article (failing WP:N). This is a determination within the prerogative of any AfD. Xoloz 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
More ScientologyCruft, fails WP:BIO. The entire basis for this person's claim to notability (that he was supposedly L. Ron Hubbard's chosen successor but got screwed out of it) comes only from rumours and gossip from an anti-Scn personal page (xenu.net) and a book by Hubbard Jr. whose own article says he retracted and redacted his claims in that book. Gets only 250 unique Ghits and not all of those are even this same person. wikipediatrix 19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. Hu12 05:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on yet another band, created by a single-purpose account, who looks like he had no interest in providing any external sources whatsoever, and no verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus (keep)—no new comments since relisting, and both sides have developed reasonable arguments. — Deckill er 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Record label article with no independent external sources, thus no outside assertion of notability. No verifiability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as a blatant and self-evident hoax. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Hoax, someone with username Leslielohan created this. I'd speedy if it fell under one of the categories. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 02:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic jumble of random phrases. Hopelessly biased towards the present day and to "Anglo-Saxon" political figures. Bigdaddy1981 08:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have left a note to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics about this. Circeus 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Compare this list with 2 other lists:
Comment. All we need is an auto-updating 'rank' formula. However, we also need these cases to be referenced...it could be a problem separating true and false cases if we don't maintain standards. So, this could be 'kept and improved' but ideas on how to do so are needed. 131.96.70.164 23:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like a random list of events involving the Italians and the Kurdish people or Chinese and the Kurdish people. Intended scope on "A-B relation" articles are diplomatic relations as it is with Turkish-American relations, Franco-American relations and etc. Kurds fortunately/unfortunately do not have a country to have diplomatic relations -- Cat chi? 18:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established and page needs wikification even if it is established. The external link included has very weak notability support. TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as an entirely unsourceable article full of original research. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT a dictionary and absurd verifiability problems. Has anyone read the references section? The article practically nominates itself for deletion, to quote the article: It is difficult and nearly impossible to find referances to Sinhala colloquial slang in any form of formal literature availble in the Internet. The sooner we get rid of this the better. Burntsauce 18:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Neil ム 09:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Book made by stapling paper together and writing/drawing on it with friends. Non-notable term that lacks verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Ilove friensship books!!!!
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
nonnotable musicians `' Míkka 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus Although the article lacks direct citations, for the moment, the surrounding Wikipedia articles on the television show provide sufficient evidence to meet the basic needs of WP:V. Beyond that, this discussion cannot agree on the best result, with some commenters apparently more concerned about this class of articles in general, than this example in particular. Xoloz 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
DELETE. Child actor in minor recurring role. Not notable per Wikipedia standards. Kogsquinge 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all. Singu larity 03:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Member of back-up group for Japanese band Do As Infinity. (The back-up group has no article of its own, just a redirect to DAI.) Article contains no reliable sources as references and almost no sourced content at all. I am adding the articles for four of the other five members of the back-up group to this nomination:
The result was keep.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete hoax. Carlossuarez46 23:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax. I can't find any online sources concerning this person's existence, despite claiming to be "one of the best comedians of all time". Hut 8.5 17:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
not notable yet professional wrestler & model Mukadderat 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a 1-line description and a list of features, a classic definition of an ad. Before it was edited down (in several stages), its text was more clearly advertising. The prior AfD reached no consensus, and the issues raised then (notability, sources, alexa rank) have not been addressed since. No independent references are cited. No particular indication of notability is present. Has been tagged for speedy delete twice, each tag removed. DES (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP w/ strong recommendation to redirect. Speedy close given the resemblance to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Johnson (Rent), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Marquez (RENT), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Collins (Rent character). - Nabla 15:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I am not the original nominator, but User:BaronessofBud nominated it, and never finished the nomination. In the edit summary she wrote: "the article is poorly written, and all information is available in the RENT page. It is unecessary and undeftly executed, so it should be deleted." — Music Maker 5376 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, without prejudice to creation of a properly sourced and BLP-compliant version. Walton One 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This subject fails WP:BIO. He is a colorful local character who writes a lot of letters to a university newspaper, and has had one human interest feature written about him in the same paper. While I am sure he is well known around town, most college towns have at least one if not several characters around that are just as known locally. That does not make them notable enough for an inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Crockspot 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable soccer team. Unreferenced article, unable to find verifiable, third party sources. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. No prejudice towards the new article ( Musical depictions of Superman) being nominated. Or not. It's up to you guys! Neil ム 10:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Looks like this falls foul of
WP:NOT#INFO in as much as the inclusion criteria are pretty subjective. Also has a serious issue with
WP:VERIFY and
WP:OR.
EyeSerene
TALK
15:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge to the artist. (SPAs opinions were discounted.) Xoloz 14:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The organization doesn't seem notable. No refs save its homepage. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Nihiltres( t. l) 15:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Patent nonsense. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. "I found some sources but don't care enough to provide them" is not a winning argument. Neil ム 10:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Local radio talk show host in Phoenix; sole claim to fame seems to be extremely minor controversy (I could find one story in Google News Archives and that was in the Phoenix newspaper) claiming that an AP reporter was engaged in "boinkage" with her boss. Don Imus he ain't. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable neologism, a portmanteau of Somali and English. No coverage in third party sources. Eliz81 (talk) (contribs) 14:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable person; obvious conflict of interest. I am also implicitly nominating the image contained in the article. Contested speedy A7. Shalom Hello 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was invalid nomination because no deletion rationale has been offered and all the comments are keep. If someone desires a proper AfD may be filed later. Newyorkbrad 19:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted, no real content. No prejudice towards a real article being created, explaining the channel's notability, and providing references. Neil ム 10:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
this is a duplicate article, correct one already exists here TeleAsty — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeMan5 ( talk • contribs) 2007/08/09 17:03:47
I am proposing one of these is speedily deleted as duplicates and redirected. I am also proposing the remaining article be considered for AfD as non-notable and unsourced. -- KTC 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. One "keep" is from an employee, the other is not convincing. Neil ム 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable, unsourced, probably already included on other Harry Potter related pages. Guest9999 13:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge into the season's main article. Xoloz 14:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Davnel03 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There may be room for an article written on this subject. This article, however, is a graphic display (only partially-sourced) intended, apparently, to simplify the presentation of information. As such, it is arguably speedy-deleteable under CSD A3 (articles with only tables, and no supporting text. That articles must be written is an assumption implicit to the fundamental nature of an encyclopedia. It is also worth observing the inherent POV nature of the present page (Torture and Warrantless Wire-tapping are the only Civil Liberties issues these days?!?!), but this decision is taken on the basis that this content does not constitute an "article", but a pure pictorial display, which Wikipedia plainly is not. Policy demands the removal of this content, and strength of argument for deletion succeeds for this reason. Of course, the composition of a written article on this topic is a separate question, in which many commenters below see some merit. Xoloz 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This article does not seem to be appropriate per Wikipedia standards. It is unreferenced and serves only as a voting guide which Wikipedia is not. Metros 12:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result was Withdrawn after most of the conerns were fixed. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 22:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no context, unreferenced, other problems evident. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 10:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this page for deletion because I don't feel it's really appropriate for an Encyclopedia article, and I'm not sure if even a redirect is warranted. Since similar AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick.com and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarTrek.com were a bit contentious, I do feel this does at least merit some discussion. Yes, Harry Potter is notable. But do these sites meet the criteria found at WP:WEB? The most I can see is possibly some domain name claims for trademarks, and that's not even in this article. FrozenPurpleCube 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator recommended keep. Initial nomination did not have reason given. Non-admin close. KTC 12:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Incomplete Afd from previous editor, restarting: Since the Afd tag has been raised on the article, it seems best to finish the process properly. Despite obvious cleanup issues, I see a notability claim based on solid web hits including: media coverage (the BBC among others), longevity (32 years), and growing participation (855, plus 5000 spectators) and money raised (over £66000) from the event during 2006. Accordingly, I recommend Keep. Michael Devore 06:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit 02:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Author contested prod for no reason. I still have the same issues - not notable. Seems to be a way of getting that Craigmile person's name on the web. Postcard Cathy 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was
So the walls came tumbling down
And your love's a blown out candle
All is gone and it seems too hard to handle
Chiquitita, tell me the truth
There is no way you can deny it
I see that you're oh so sad, so quiet
— Caknuck 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources that indicate that parodies and references to ABBA in the media is a notable topic. Otto4711 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 23:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician - no independent evidence of notability provided other than a MySpace page. Reads like self-promotional spam. Mattinbgn/ talk 06:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
No clue. User:BaronessofBud started the Afd - I'm just completing it for completeness' sake SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angel Dumott Schunard
The result was Keep. Walton One 15:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - there do not appear to be reliable sources attesting to the notability of this author. Otto4711 03:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was purge. DS 04:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - 99.99999999% certain this is a hoax. The U.S. never had troops stationed anywhere near Hanoi during the Vietnam War, "Agn-Dailan" is not a Vietnamese nor French word, the French did not have Foreign Legion troops in Hanoi in 1970, the French squadron leaders name is Doremee (a doe, a deer, a female deer...get it?), the Marines don't take hostages, the French hostages were whipped in the town square of Hanoi (righttttt), and the only references to it are this and wikimirrors.-- Nobunaga24 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, no need to salt at this time. — Caknuck 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to have significant coverage by reliable (re: non-MySpace) secondary sources. Prod removed by Sleepv1, one of two accounts that have contributed almost exclusively to this article. 17Drew 03:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There certainly might be reason to revisit this decision, if additional sources are found. The consensus below is that the person fails WP:PROF, and is thus not notable. Xoloz 15:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article establishes a bit of notability, but I don't believe it establishes enough. If this person is a professor there, then many have written books, it's not notable in and of itself. Wizardman 03:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was I went and merged everything into kickflip, which I probably just should've done in the first place. Wizardman 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I can't see how this would be notable outside of skateboarding circles. Certainly this information could be merged into Kickflip, but no reason to stand on its own. Wizardman 02:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep — Caknuck 01:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Wikipedia-related website. Obviously does not meet WP:WEB notability criteria; might not have even been created were it not for its connection to Wikipedia. Creator has expressed the concern that it might belong at Wikipedia:Tools. I do not think this article itself would be of much use there, but if someone would like to create a tools page for this and thinks that the current article could be of assistance in any way, it could be userfied. Savidan 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - this evaluation explicitly devalues the discussion before TerrierFan's expansion - before that, there was a probably "delete as non-notable" dominant thought position, now notability appears to be established. Cheers, Wily D 14:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Stub elementary school article with no assertion of notability. Nyttend 01:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Disagree - It may be a stub, however educational institutions aren't exactly expendable. WP isn't paper. -- Mnemnoch 02:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 02:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Would have been an expired prod, but I thought it needed a little more attention. Article has been in a rudimentary state for months despite tags seeking improvement. NawlinWiki 01:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - Had this article been modified and more interesting purpose applied to it, I could see where it might not be an AfD. The information can be merged elsewhere and most things on this page are redirects anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemnoch ( talk • contribs)
DGG ( talk) 16:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Week Keep as per Zginder. Harlowraman 00:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 02:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable ( WP:BIO) — Fingers-of-Pyrex 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom and no other users supporting deletion. Non-admin close. cab 02:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I know this page is trying to say something, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Ideogram 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Western Block (North China Craton). -- Ideogram 01:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong keep - Definitely looks like a notable geologic object, just need to get some people from the geography wikiproject to clean it up and make it encyclopaedic -- L u c id 01:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nomination. Admins, please close. -- Ideogram 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep, withdrawn by nom and no other users supporting deletion. Non-admin close. cab 02:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I know this article is trying to say something, but for the life of me I cannot understand it. Ideogram 01:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North China craton. -- Ideogram 01:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep - Seems like a notable geologic object, just needs to be made more appropriate for an encyclopaedia, and made more human readable -- L u c id 01:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Withdraw nomination. Admins please close. -- Ideogram 02:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 01:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This page is "how to" guide on dealing with Pakistani emigration procedures. WP:NOT violation at the very least. Kww 00:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The article still contains no independent, reliable sources. Sandstein 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was WP:N and WP:V and WP:SPAM, which about sums up what the article is. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Black Falcon ( Talk) 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an unreleased fan-game, an apparent homage/unofficial sequal to the King's Quest series. While it's rife with good intentions, it just doesn't seem all that notable, aside from a cease and desist order from Vivendi - and if cease-and-desist orders are qualifications for notability, then Action Jackson IV's dating history should be a featured article :-D Beyond self-published claims of being "one of the largest fangame projects", I can't quite see how this is more than crystal ballery. It is, however, a rather well-written article, not quite as self-promoting as one would expect, and perhaps being seven years in the making counts for something. Action Jackson IV 23:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as spam (CSD G11). Closed early per snow and consensus for speedy. Nihiltres( t. l) 03:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
expired uncontested prod, but has been around for a year with several editors, so afd is the place: fails notability, WP:CORP and is not verified. Carlossuarez46 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. An operator of 5 R-44 helicopters, with nothing found to establish notability of this run-of-the-mill general aviation company. Russavia 21:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep This article meets the criteria for notability in WP:CORP through at least two independent, reliable, secondary sources: Scanair and Trønder-Avisa (in Norwegian). Arsenikk 13:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 01:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. It is a small charter outfit of Puerto Rico, with a single bizjet and 2 small helicopters. Nothing found which established the notability of this company. Russavia 21:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:VERIFY, no third party sources. It may also be spam, but I'm not sure of that. Jackaranga 20:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. PeaceNT 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a non-notable phenomenon. No assertion of notability in the article and my internet search did not turn up any reliable sources regarding it. Chunky Rice 20:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete due to no evidence of notability or reliable sources. — TKD:: Talk 11:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Article has no assertion of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi ( talk • contribs) 2007/08/02 19:57:49
The result was delete. Singu larity 04:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
A Google search of the book & its publisher does not seem to establish notability [38]. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Bikini contest held in China. The People's Daily prints photos of the models who compete in this event, but no one seems to have actually done an article on it. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 14:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect for GFDL compliance as information from this article had been substantially merged into STS-115 prior to nomination and to retain any information for future reference. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
To standardize shuttle missions, (see STS-116, STS-117, STS-118) I have merged Timeline of STS-115 into STS-115, and this page can be deleted. It has been orphaned since March 2007. The only link to the page is STS-115 Timeline which can also be removed. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Space_missions is working to standardize all the mission articles into the same format, so the timeline should remain with the mission page, not as a separate article. While STS-115 will need pruning, this orphaned article can probably be purged. Notices placed on Talk:STS-115, the Project talk page, and on Talk:STS-118 (current flight). Ariel♥ Gold 00:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Understood, and of course, I knew that copying and pasting entire articles is a no-no, but basically this is a list of activities as stated from NASA's end of day Status Reports, nothing changed in what the crew did, or how they did it, so it makes it quite difficult to even attempt to "rewrite" it. It was just a mistake on my part for not thinking it through, again my most abject apologies. I'd appreciate if someone could handle the redirect, and remove the AFD notice, and feel free to remove my addition, and I'll just try and find a way to re-word everything, without losing all the NASA URL references while doing it. So much for my first foray into AfD, lol. Ariel♥ Gold 04:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and split to Lodestar and Lodestar (disambiguation)-- Atlan ( talk) 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The article is mainly used for advertising from all kinds of companies with Lodestar in their names. Stripped of said advertising, what is left is the dictionary definition of lodestar and two internal links ( Loadstar and Lodestar (band)) that don't really require a disambiguation page. Whatever relevant information the article holds besides that, can already be found in more suitable articles. Atlan ( talk) 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I have created Lodestar (disambiguation) and moved the relevant other uses there. Please judge the article on what is left. Like I said, I don't think the article can be expanded beyond its dictionary definition.-- Atlan ( talk) 10:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally speedied as a neologism, which is not speedy-able. Anyone think it's notable? Daniel Case 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete — Caknuck 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Marked as speedy but it does make an assertion of notability. But is it one that merits reworking into an article? Daniel Case 00:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete As it was only created yesterday I was going to plaster it with tags and try to categorize it and see what happens over the course of the week. I'll still do that but as it stands now there are no assertations about notability (sorry what's provided is not notable), claimed but unprovided sources and frankly the prose style is a little breathless and some of the claims extremely suspect. I call WP:NN and WP:OR. I will change my vote if the issues are properly addressed. Peter Rehse 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFY, no assertion of notability Jackaranga 16:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 11:00, 16 August 2007 (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}} . |
nn Harry Potter fansite. Alexa is a modest 13,838, but how is an article about a fansite suitable for an encyclopedia, when there are hundreds of articles on the harry potter universe. Article is somewhat spammy and very non-npov, no assertion of notability. Biggspowd 21:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment Sorry if you are getting tired of me, but I found summervillejournalscene.com [46] had veritaserum.com mentioned in an article. Thanks -- 209.102.152.185 05:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Laura reply