The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Individual students participating in model parliaments, volunteer cadet youth groups, or similar education/training-based organizations, aren't inherently notable. Nice to see young people interested in learning how their government works, and potentially serving their country and all, but mock elections and volunteer youth group activities generally have no real-world notability. Complete lack of independent/secondary reliable sources bears this out. Ravenna1961 ( talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Author requested speedy deletion. -- Michael Greiner 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Essentially the article is a dwarf copy of Phospholipase C. Initially there was a suggestion for the content to be merged, however, after examining this article there appears to be nothing of value. Merely gives alternate names for the enzyme in question and lists a host of unspecified signaling systems. Wisdom89 ( talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm very sorry to waffle on this, but Banus' suggestion of a redirect seems best, as I think everyone will agree. I'd forgotten about our page listing all the EC numbers, so I re-created the page as a redirect. Thank you to the admins who swiftly deleted the page at my request, and I apologize for bothering you when it wasn't needed. Willow ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Redirect at your pleasure. Kurykh 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Fictional character; article is 100% in-universe content, no assertion of real-world notability, no sources other than the TV show's website Stormie ( talk) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Also nominating:
Same deal, other characters from same show. -- Stormie ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was created by Akua1969 ( talk · contribs), presumably the article's subject. She doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. A ecis Brievenbus 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per G7 - only author has blanked the page. -- Oxymoron 83 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. There is a claim to notability in the article, in the subject appearing on Fox News Channel. I'm moving this to AFD. No opinion. A ecis Brievenbus 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:24, December 22, 2007
Contested PROD. This list will be hopelessly POV and a magnet for vanity. Who decides who is distinguished? Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:List and could be better handled with categories Gillyweed ( talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Eighteen months ago, at its last AfD, the article looked like this. The only thing that really changed since then is the addition of a table and the addition of raw info. The article doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and its direction (if there is one) doesn't look good. Singu larity 07:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links as per WP:EL. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages as per WP:NOT#DIR Anshuk ( talk) 06:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a easy way to get a full listing of specific software. I find it usefull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.77.154 ( talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think this is great. Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.228.153 ( talk) 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Finding VJ software is difficult as it is often obscure. Seems reasonable to keep this list here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmeader3 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. east.718 at 08:25, December 22, 2007
Was created as a fork from Tip. Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Most content unreferenced or poor quality references. Barrylb ( talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-sourced article on a political pressure group. Guy ( Help!) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete without prejudice (talk page kept) to re-creation should notability be established. A person who runs for office and fails to be elected may be otherwise notable (the best example in recent American history might be Ross Perot). As the evidence currently stands, Shane Sklar does not fall into that category; should his notability be established in relation to Ron Paul, the question would need to be asked "should Shane Sklar have an article or should he be relegated to a section of the article on Ron Paul?" on the basis of independent vs. inextricably dependent notability. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unnotable "politician" that never won any office, fails WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
- Politicians:
Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[9] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[10] Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.
The result was keep. John254 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable band which has previously been deleted from Wikipedia. Have had one single in UK charts, but nothing else of notability. Egdirf ( talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge→ Josh Groban: Prior to closure, the article had been redirected-without-merger to Josh Groban. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Insufficient content and verifiability to become a good article. It was suggested for AfD at Talk:Josh Groban (sorry if this nomination was categorized incorrectly). I80and ( talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Non-notable band. The band is an independent band not signed by an established major label or well-known indie label. The sources provided are dubious at best, including one that is obviously a video interview conducted by the author of this article, [User:Goldwingedlion]], which itself violates original research policies. (The video is hosted on goldwingedlion.com.) Moreover, the CDfreedom listing (which is linkspam) is apparently a listing by "goldwingedlion" according to the URL. It appears that, given these circumstances and the apparent conflict of interest, that this article and the companion Giuseppe Cotteli are really spam that the author tried to pass off as a legitimate article. Even if there were no COI/spam issues, the band would still not meet WP:BAND. No charted songs, no signing by a major label or recognized indie label, nothing more than trivial independent coverage. It's gotta go. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously prodded and deleted and subsequently recreated by User:Kitia, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried about English-language bias, I note that the Japanese Wikipedia entry is completely unreferenced as well. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient for someone who died in 1975, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Cheers, CP 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Local branch. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIT.YPDS. Soman ( talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Generally, we don't have separate articles for local branches of political parties and youth wings. This type of presentation is better adapted for facebook or myspace. Soman ( talk) 20:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a very prominant branch with lots of factual information contained in the information and it is no different to the following page from a rival local branch of a youth party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland%2C_Galway_YFG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.34.159 ( talk • contribs) so, assumably, if this article is to be deleted, which I would certainly protest because I think it is relevant, then surely the above link would also be deleted because it is the exact same category and idea, just with defferent names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dart22 ( talk • contribs)
You're entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, whilst this article may be of no interest to you, it may be of interest to people interested in Irish politics/youth politics. And surely like will be treated with like, so if this page is is deleted with reason then surely the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland%2C_Galway_YFG will also be delted? - Just to make sure wikipedia is fair and balanced in its directives on Irish politics/youth politics. However the above similar page has existed for quite some time without protest and I'm sure there are other pages just like it around, so I don't see don't what the problem is with making a similar page for a different party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dart22 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems redundant, since we have already List of PlayStation 2 games with PAL releases marked. Mika1h ( talk) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanity article about self-published musician. This article offers no assertion of notability and is of questionable veracity. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Blanchardb: It's fine if you delete the links to where the artist's music can be purchased, but that does not negate the fact that the artist is a notable musician in the relevant genre. Omotorwayo ( talk) 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Anetode: I disagree and believe there is sufficient evidence and record sales history, which speaks to the artist's importance in musical genres mentioned. The page has already been confirmed as notable twice in the past. Omotorwayo ( talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Anetode: Furthermore, given that the artist is currently on the German label ( http://suburbantrash.c8.com/), which is not the only label he has released music on, I don't see how he is "self-published." Omotorwayo ( talk) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Uhh... so three record labels run by other people are self-sourced? I follow that logic 100%!
at this point i could care less if the page gets deleted because everyone here has proven to be so disgustingly ignorant of IDM/Electronic music that having a page on here would be bad for the artist's image.
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to put myself and my poor Google searching ability on the line for this one. I believe this to be a hoax, as I could not find any information on a "Richard Rhyde Rhodes" or "Richard Rhodes" that has any of the traits claimed by this article (there is plenty on this notable Richard Rhodes, but it is not the same person as this article). If he was on the Forbes 400 in 1992, for example, that should come up very quickly with a Google search, but I cannot seem to find anything on that, or anything else in this article, hence it seems to fail WP:V. If someone can provide sources, I would probably withdraw the nomination because he does seem to have at least some claim to notability (if he is indeed real). Cheers, CP 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
While the article is an interesting read, ultimately it appears to be original research. The term "Hellish science fiction" garners exactly one google hit while ""Lovecraftian science fiction" gets ten unique hits. With no references at all, I'm not sure this will ever be anything more than original research as the term just plain doesn't appear to be widespread. IrishGuy talk 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:27, December 22, 2007
The article has no references to establish notability per WP:FICTION, and thus without reliable sources per WP:RS. It has no information other than in-universe plot repetition derived from the plot sections of the Pokemon game articles, so it is also entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
About someone's music class project that involves writing a piece of music via a Wiki. Not notable right now. Mr Senseless ( talk) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No asserted out-of-universe notability. Delete. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Listen all i did was turn a red link blue, So if the link turns red again i as a user must turn it blue. Deanostrodamus the Mystical ( talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:29, December 22, 2007
It is completely unsourced, some of the text seems to have been copied/pasted with sentences moved around from other sites(such as the band's myspace) and whether the article asserts notability is questionable. AngelOfSadness talk 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. All such pages should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAnteaterNot ( talk • contribs) 2007/12/09 02:40:55
The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation if at least one solid source can be uncovered; the current ones just don't cut it. BLACKKITE 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
A non-notable group. Most of the sources are self-published. The only exceptions are Haaretz and YNet - these are well-established Israeli news sources, but the cited articles do not mention Avriri, but only certain persons which this page claims to be members of Avriri. Note - Googling for Avriri or the Hebrew name אוורירי is useless, because it's a common Hebrew word which meaning means something like "full with air" or "refreshing". You may try searching for אוורירי קמר (Avriri Kamer), but you won't find much more than Kamer's blogs.
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk)
10:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I was uncomfortable speedy deleting this under CSD A7, as it might be read to contain a weak of assertion of notability. Still, I see no real evidence of this supposedly scholarly family having done anything encyclopedic. Delete for failing WP:BIO. Xoloz ( talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Xoloz ( talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Mp4 23 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
The Reason I have put this article up for deleting is that it is incorrectly named, is should be Mclaren MP4-23 NOT Mp4 23, also if you type in McLaren MP4-23 is redirects to Team McLaren's page, which is the right thing to do as the car has not even been launched yet. The MP4-23 will be Team McLaren 2008 car. To give you an idea of what a article should look like, here is this years car McLaren MP4-22.
Neil Mundy ( talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This guy is a bit of a bohemian and a bit of a real-estate agent, and non-notable at either of these things. Google search for "Alon Kastiel" in English yields mostly Wikipedia clones, thanks to this article's inclusion in the Real estate category. The "BBC Interview" link is not really an interview with Kastiel, but an article about Israeli elections, which passingly mentions the guy. The only substantial source about Kastiel in English is this article in Haaretz, which actually discusses pretty serious matters of Israeli wars, but has very little to do with this article and still doesn't establish notability of the person (the whole point of that article is that Kastiel is not unique). Searching in Hebrew for "אלון קסטיאל" yields results which are only marginally more substantial: they talk about a few lofts that he bought and sold and a few parties that he threw in them - mostly gossip-y material. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 (blanked by only editor) by Snowolf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Characters from a fictional work don't merit their own article unless independent notability can be established. I see no where where these characters are discussed in reliable sources, and the main article can deal with them just fine. See WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wholly unreferenced stub article on someone claimed to be the oldest man ever born in the USA, which is not a bad assertion of notability … but even if there wre some references to support that assertion, there would also need to be some substantial coverage in
reliable sources for him to be notable per
WP:BIO. I have searched for refs, but didn't expect to find much since he died in 1985: see
Google books search,
google news search 1,
google news search 2 - the search is complicated by the two possible spellings of Matthew/Mathew and the presence of many other Mat(t)hew Beards, though Gnews did throw up two subscription-only hits in old local newspapers which may or may be relevant, but which in either case do not seem substantial.
[13]
[14]
Meanwhile the article consists almost entirely of unsourced speculation about Beard's place in the longevity rankings. He is listed in
List of the oldest people#List and in
Oldest people#Oldest_men_ever_.28top_10.29, which is quite sufficient unless and until there is something substantive to write about him from reliable sources. There may be printed sources which are not available online, and if they are found then the article could of course be recreated at a later date if substantial coverage is found in
reliable sources. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment And then his case is questionable. Might not be 114.
Neal (
talk)
18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
reply
The result was delete. Concerns about notability and the quality of sourcing were not met. east.718 at 08:33, December 22, 2007
Non-notable and no reliable sources.
In all, the article presents the subject as the secondary co-author of two books and four articles (linked to from the primary author Poltorak's web site), none of which are the subject of any independent critical reviews. It also tries to promote the subject as having argued a case in the CAFC that was cited in a single sentence in the MPEP, a publication thousands of pages long. Other biographical and career info does not distinguish the subject as deserving of an independent Wikipedia article -- just and an attorney, adjunct professor, and executive of a firm of unknown size.
This article has been fluffed up in an attempt to make the author appear notable, but on closer inspection this person does not meet WP:BIO and the article is not supported with reliable sources.
Emcee ( talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. I was tempted to delete this, but it may be useful as a repository for many minor characters that currently have their own unnecessary articles (see the merge tags). However, it needs to be heavily cleaned up, all WP:OR excised, and trivial characters removed. A future AfD may take note of this close. BLACKKITE 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The title of this list is the first thing that's problematic: in addition to "minor" suggesting a lack of notability for these characters, "villain" is non- WP:NPOV; for the same reason various "Villain/hero in X franchise/text" have been deleted for lack of clear inclusion criteria, the boundaries of this list are vague -- for example, Yun in one plot path in the game he appears in heroically defends the player's character. Well, I'd call it heroic -- it's my own belief, not cited anywhere. The article has been tagged for additional references since January 2006, and most of the seven are two primary sources conveying just plot summary. Additionally, only one source has been added since May; the content is overwhelmingly plot summary and unverified original research. I realize some editors are touchy about deleting these lists of...; I point toward this AfD as precedent for similar removal (which didn't have the non-NPOV title issues). -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, no explanation of notability, no claim or evidence the plays of this playwright have ever been published or performed, google finds no evidence notability. Weregerbil ( talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not only is this a minor fictional character that doesn't warrant an article, the article is unsourced and unreferenced. MovieMadness ( talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't believe the subject of this article meets notability criteria, but I wasn't quite sure enough for a PROD. He has written a book, but it doesn't seem to have done particularly well. The unsourced details in the article, especially in the "personal life" section, make me wonder if there's a WP:COI issue here. Joyous! | Talk 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete did not assert notability, in addition to COI, SOCK & other concerns. SkierRMH ( talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination— article version at time of AFD Article nominated for PROD-deletion with rejection in October 2007, then re-PROD'd in December 2007. First PROD nominator stated: "UScentric slang word, un-encyclopedic". Second PROD nominator stated: "this is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang." User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Whether we need the new disambiguation at Brownbagging is debatable. It's really only disambiguating between the aforementioned and the concept of a packed lunch, whose article is a stub and wherein discussion of the sorts of places one takes a packed lunch to, and what one takes it in, obviously belong. A headnote disambiguation would have done just as well as a full disambiguation article. But I have no strong opinion on removing the full disambiguation article now that it exists. Uncle G ( talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (A7) by Irishguy. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable music producer. The Triple J Unearthed dance charts are for "up-and-coming" artists and do not in my mind confer notability. No secondary sources or references, and a quick Google search on "Gavin Edom" reveals only two pages other than Wikipedia. As an aside, most of the work on this article has been done by User:Gavin Edom, which adds a dash of WP:COI to the whole matter. Lankiveil ( talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod about a computer game that Google only finds mentioned on Wikipedia. [17] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- Allen3 talk 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Multiple sources establish its Notability. Non-admin closure. NAH ID 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, no notability. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. The author states, in the edit summary of the article's creation, that he created this page to resolve a dispute in a private blog. Delete. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 13:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and recreate as redirect to Spamdexing. Sandstein ( talk) 16:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Most ghits return blogs related to farms, not blog farms. Delete. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and rename. Addhoc ( talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
{{ prod}} removed after a single reference was added. The article had been completely unreferenced for more than six months. It's almost completely original research. Mikeblas ( talk) 12:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I did, and found ISBN 0596008848, page 587 of ISBN 1592730043, page 30 of ISBN 1584503440, page 177 of ISBN 0761532994, page 392 of ISBN 1584500778, and page 264 of ISBN 3540245758 (a.k.a. doi: 10.1007/b106134) in under 2 minutes. There's even this from which further tidbits of knowledge on this subject can be gleaned.
Look for sources yourself and try to fix the article. Only bring articles to AFD if, after looking, you cannot find sources from which to make an article. And don't be afraid of boldly rewriting unsourced content into fully-sourced brilliant prose, and of merging, renaming, and refactoring articles about tangentially documented subjects into articles about the overall subjects that sources document — none of which require AFD. Uncle G ( talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial product. Notability supported only by product reviews. Too few substantial references exist to support a viable Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory, and Wikipedia is also not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Mikeblas ( talk) 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for {{ prod}} by Marasmusine with the rationale "Neologism". The prod tag was removed. I am therefore bringing this to AfD as a clear contraventon of WP:NEO. There are no Ghits on this term in context, and it doesn't appear in any dictionary that I've looked in Tonywalton Talk 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Minor fictional characters from KND with no sign of real world notability. I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail to define notability either in real world or in-universe guides:
The result was Delete. The arguments against merging were unrebutted and persuasive. Xoloz ( talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be independently notable from its parent, all references are primary, also reads like an advert. {{mergeto}} tag removed by author. BLACKKITE 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. If any editor would like to merge some of the content with Dead Sea or Michael Sinclair Sanders, I will provide the deleted text. BLACKKITE 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No Reliable sources. Nehwyn ( talk) 08:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G4. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Hockey League, was to delete.
League that didn't come to fruition in 2006, didn't come to fruition in 2007, and now, according to their official website, will exist in 2008. Let's not leave this around for another couple of years in hopes that it might exist, let's wait till it really exists. Corvus cornix talk 08:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The advertizing aspect is not so blatant to qualify for speedy, so the issue shifts to notability, where the arguments for keep are stronger.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Corvus cornix talk 08:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Original author has major conflict of interest, as the CDfreedom catalog page for this artist's band Sheiks of Sheba (which is up for speedy, as this article was originally) contains the author's username in its URL. No other reliable, independent sources are provided. The author is apparently promoting the band and its lead singer, violating WP:SPAM. The artist also fails WP:MUSIC. See Talk:Sheiks of Sheba for related deletion discussions. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
9 Google hits none of which are relevant. Zero media. Party of which he is the 'leader' is not incorporated or recognized in Canada. Completely NN. Chabuk [ T • C ] 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
10 google hits, zero media. Party of which he is the "leader" is not incorporated. Inherently NN. Chabuk [ T • C ] 08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:36, December 22, 2007
Non-notable company. Has been speedily deleted once as spam. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 07:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Singu larity 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable manga artist. Of three sources, 2 are 404s and 1 is a user-contributed manga site. Google search reveals mostly author-atributions, a fanfic site or two, and no critical commentary on the artist. Google News has no hits. Even if some of these works of art are notable, notability doesn't transfer. Therefore, proposed for deletion. Mbisanz ( talk) 07:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:37, December 22, 2007
Fails WP:FICT, mostly unsourced WP:Plot. Tagged for lack of notability since August with no change. Collectonian ( talk) 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:FICT. 1 year old fictional baby on the show. No establishment of notability in the article, not even the name of the baby actor(s) playing him. Collectonian ( talk) 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:39, December 22, 2007
Fails WP:FICT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Pure, unadulterated WP:PLOT that is also extremely redundant when there is already an article each for Ethan Winthrop and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. Collectonian ( talk) 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No established editor has put forward an argument for retention here, so the decision is easy and unanimous. Xoloz ( talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Was previously speedied by User:Alabamaboy and contested (see user's talk page). I'm guessing it was deleted, as the date on that was October 22nd while the page was created on December 8th.
Anyway, a Google search turns up no hits aside from those on Wikipedia. Proposing delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Can't find anything about the book or said author, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as blatant hoax. Glass Cobra 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The records listed in this article are completely fraudulent. A google search for "Brian O'Connell juggling" turns up no one with the name Brian O'Connell who is a world-class juggler. Additionally, these are the exact records and durations that world-class juggler Anthony Gatto has attained, with proof, on his website and JISCON (and copied directly from AG's WP page). This page needs to be deleted immediately. Rahzel ( talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N. Non-admin closure. NAH ID 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I could see an article on TV programming in the 50's. Maybe even for individual seasons. But a programming grid? WP:NOT a (very old, very outdated) TV guide. — Coren (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
An actor "best known" for a role in a made-for-TV holiday docudrama hardly meets WP:BIO. — Coren (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable fictional character. No sources. — Coren (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Pigman ☿ 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable self-published (AuthorHouse) author, no references or sources Accounting4Taste: talk 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. There isn't really enough discussion to draw a firm conclusion here, but the matter can be handled editorially with a redirect, and so it shall be. Xoloz ( talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Dozen Furies (2nd nomination) was for the winners of Battle for Ozzfest, this article on one of other groups, which is still planning on releasing their debut album next year, probably doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to relevant district. Singu larity 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school. Deprodded without explanation. Closedmouth ( talk) 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Was speedied as lacking assertions of notability. Article was recreated without addressing that concern. There is no evidence that this camp has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources; the basic requirements of notability. Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete based on strength of arguments. There may be reason for an article on this topic, but the present article doesn't make a case from reliable sources that this is so. I'll be glad to userfy for sourcing upon polite request; the case for the article was not helped by the needlessly aggressive tone of the article's author. (I considered a merge and redirection, but this particular title is probably best redirected to devil. Xoloz ( talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Article is about a single character from a single movie. There is no evidence at all that reliable sources have discussed this character to this depth at all. This is largely original research and there is NO independent verification of any of this information at all. This takes an entirely in-universe perspective as well, in violation of WP:WAF and WP:FICT guidelines. This is not surprising, as no reliable sources seem to have dealt with this topic in any significant way. Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Of course, if you are saying that you cannot do citations because there are no books, articles, papers, and so forth that your information is coming from, then you have just explained why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for primary research, and is not a publisher of first instance. It's an encyclopaedia. Uncle G ( talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The Lord of Darkness has been the subject of two action figures, a 7" figure by McFarlane Toys and one 1/4 scale model by SOTA toys. [29]
I have since added three more.
Will that suffice? Hmm?
-- Illustrious One ( talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
So you suggest deleting this entire article and moving all the numerous facts it contains to the Legend article. If that happens don't you think the Legend article will be just a bit big? What would be the point? Just give the guy an article, he deserves it. He's the most well-known character from a well-known cult film and the article has citations, external links, it's informative, is written from an out-of-universe perspective and it provides a broad range of information on various topics. All it needs is an image and it will be feature article standard for the love of God! What what would be the point in deleting it? -- Illustrious One ( talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The entire personality section is a composition of obvious facts that are drawn from the movie. The thing about Ganon (with one "n" by the way) being based on him is a well-known rumour that is also mentioned in the Legend article if you'd care to have a look. Merry Christmas. -- Illustrious One ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, and this article is nothing more than a description of the phone's features. Insufficient substantial third-party sources exist to carry a viable Wikipedia article on this product. The article is just a list of features and essentially unreferenced. Listing for AfD after {{ prod}} removed. Mikeblas ( talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy because notability is asserted in the form of multiple publications, and talk page discussion. My opinion is to delete, but that this did not meet speedy deletion requirements. - Philippe | Talk 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:N (people). Non-admin closure. NAH ID 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata
Non-notable player. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. There's nothing here that claims that this particular football player was notable. There was a previous AfD, which apparently resulted in the article being kept, but nothing has changed since then in this article which explains how this murder victim is somehow different from any other murder victim. Corvus cornix talk 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was 'Already speedy deleted. Bduke ( talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns; after a search I could not find any reliable third-party sources, and the article itself reads like an advertisement. There is also a copyright concern; the article is more or less lifted from www.theheer.com. Pirate Mink 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, obvious hoax. Sandahl 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected hoax; a search for Barry Cook and Melbourne Victory brings up nothing but a wikipedia mirror, not to mention that someone who is apparently 17 probably hasn't been playing professional football for at least 6 years. Pirate Mink 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Per WP:FICT. Does not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction and lack secondary sources ( real world information.) More than enough information is available here. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable manga artist. No sources given. Google search reveals entry on user-contributed managa encyclopedia. Further google shows little if any commentary on individual. While her comic may be notable through its article here and on google search, notability doesn't transfer. Also, no hits on google news, other then a listing of a sale of manga. All points at not-notable Mbisanz ( talk) 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (G5) by Dreadstar. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article already exists at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, this new article has been made from edits on the original that were reverted. Pirate Mink 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Multiple reliable sources are available in this entrey, which apparently proves its notability. Non-admin closure.-- NAH ID 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Nominated purely for notability issues, not to mention there are plenty of murder victims in the world and unlike Rhys Jones, this article isn't going to do anything to deserve its own article, not to mention that this is not a memorial site. Wiki Deleting Machine ( talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — Wiki Deleting Machine ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was utter garbage. DS ( talk) 04:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
smells hoaxy to me, nothing on google Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 01:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep certainly no deletion consensus Docg 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unable to find any references other than those relating to his children. Fails WP:Notability Toddst1 ( talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Sockpuppets may be involved in this discussion. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/James brown1605. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
But he is also the agent for The Neville Brothers and has gained notoriety amongst the media, partly for his amusing name, but also for his antics at the last world cup, where he was seen partying drunkenly with the WAGS (wives and girlfriends of footballers) in Germany ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392175&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5) and was also involved in a campaign to save Bury F.C from falling into administration ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/bury/1867131.stm) and this quote shows how he saved them from extinction: "Neville tirelessly organised supporters groups, gave media interviews, worked closely with the administrators, and finally arranged a deal which would ultimately save the Shakers from extinction. We owe him a huge debt." ( http://www.buryfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/ForeverBury/0,,10422,00.html,) he is joined by his wife, Jill Neville on the board of Bury F.C to complete an extraordinary sporting family. I feel there is sufficient material and significance to keep this article. 86.142.104.27 ( talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
and his role in saving Bury F.C and becoming a director there? John Henry Davies (link below) has his own article merely based upon this, in this case for Manchester United, therefore shouldn't Mr. Neville? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Davies) 86.142.104.27 ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep Surely how notable someone is varies from reader to reader? I have no doubt that i will not have heard of some people that you consider to be notable whereas neville neville would be considered to be notable by a large number of people i know. The fact that someone has created a page for him and others have condoned it on this discussion page proves his notability. Just a thought but perhaps those people that know of Neville (ie football fans of which there are millions in the UK) aren't the type of people to come and fight his corner on these types of discussion page? His name is precisely one of those commonly quoted facts that people (like me) come to this website in order to verify. I think its ridiculous that such a public website like wikipedia can only have on it articles that everyone agrees with. Just accept the fact that while this article might not be pertinent to you it will prove useful to others and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.114 ( talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment, this probably puts it to bed - agent for two premiership footballers-- Vintagekits ( talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
"getting stronger by the day?" Marktherufftheryder is right, it is the combined issues and the increasing amount of references that makes him notable. 86.142.104.27 ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsuccessful candidate in an election. Only other claim to notability is that he's the son of a former congressman and the brother of another--but notability is not inherited. Blueboy 96 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Consensus at deletion review was to send this here. Note that the current stub was written by Danny; see the history for the longer version. This version had been deleted as a copyright violation at one time, but permission has been cleared through OTRS. The content is not encyclopedic, however; whether the topic itself is should be judged in this forum. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Chuck Palahniuk, we don't need to go through the bureaucracy of AfD for that. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
We usually don't see authors' websites' articles, so I really don't think this is the same. This doesn't really seem notable, either. — Jonathan 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Was Proposed for Deletion, but I'm moving it to AfD since it's an old article and the creator and many of the major contributors no longer seem to be active - let's give it a proper discussion. -- Stormie ( talk) 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD reason given by User:John Broughton is:
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Site" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.48.55 ( talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was transfer to Wikibooks. east.718 at 08:42, December 22, 2007
A mathematical proof is not necessarily encylopedic. These involve some simple rearrangement of formula so not notable as an interesting/unusual proof. Salix alba ( talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy%27s_surface/Proofs
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable (4 Google hits on "virtual resource partitioning"). Ddxc ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein ( talk) 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No reliable third party sources, only in-universe view, only fan fiction as source. -- Pjacobi ( talk) 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
My original deletion rationale seems to be too terse. Let me elaborate a bit. Perpetual motion devices are fiction. As such, they are only in so far relevant to us, as they left significant traces in the real world, e.g. some million dollars from gullible investors vanished or a good enough publicity stunt by the inventors to get mainstream media coverage. It is not our business to mirror Free Energy websites like http://www.americanantigravity.com/, http://www.peswiki.com or the Naudin site. Even with constant purging of the most offending ones, we now again have more than 70 links to http://www.americanantigravity.com/! Isn't it mentioned in our policies to use unreliable sources only -- if at all -- in articles about themselves? The typical example given on policy pages tends to be stormfront.org, but in terms of unreliability americanantigravity.com is second to none. -- Pjacobi ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
But are we better off having no article, or a short article which reflects the mainstream view that these things are bunk? In either case, trolls and the gullible will regularly reintroduce offending articles or content. LeContexte ( talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Docg 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This subject is of borderline notability, imo. I just don't know if it notable enough, or not.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Individual students participating in model parliaments, volunteer cadet youth groups, or similar education/training-based organizations, aren't inherently notable. Nice to see young people interested in learning how their government works, and potentially serving their country and all, but mock elections and volunteer youth group activities generally have no real-world notability. Complete lack of independent/secondary reliable sources bears this out. Ravenna1961 ( talk) 00:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Author requested speedy deletion. -- Michael Greiner 15:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Essentially the article is a dwarf copy of Phospholipase C. Initially there was a suggestion for the content to be merged, however, after examining this article there appears to be nothing of value. Merely gives alternate names for the enzyme in question and lists a host of unspecified signaling systems. Wisdom89 ( talk) 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm very sorry to waffle on this, but Banus' suggestion of a redirect seems best, as I think everyone will agree. I'd forgotten about our page listing all the EC numbers, so I re-created the page as a redirect. Thank you to the admins who swiftly deleted the page at my request, and I apologize for bothering you when it wasn't needed. Willow ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Redirect at your pleasure. Kurykh 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Fictional character; article is 100% in-universe content, no assertion of real-world notability, no sources other than the TV show's website Stormie ( talk) 23:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Also nominating:
Same deal, other characters from same show. -- Stormie ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was created by Akua1969 ( talk · contribs), presumably the article's subject. She doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines. A ecis Brievenbus 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per G7 - only author has blanked the page. -- Oxymoron 83 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. There is a claim to notability in the article, in the subject appearing on Fox News Channel. I'm moving this to AFD. No opinion. A ecis Brievenbus 23:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:24, December 22, 2007
Contested PROD. This list will be hopelessly POV and a magnet for vanity. Who decides who is distinguished? Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:List and could be better handled with categories Gillyweed ( talk) 22:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Eighteen months ago, at its last AfD, the article looked like this. The only thing that really changed since then is the addition of a table and the addition of raw info. The article doesn't seem to be going anywhere, and its direction (if there is one) doesn't look good. Singu larity 07:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links as per WP:EL. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages as per WP:NOT#DIR Anshuk ( talk) 06:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a easy way to get a full listing of specific software. I find it usefull —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.77.154 ( talk) 22:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think this is great. Please do not delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.228.153 ( talk) 08:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Finding VJ software is difficult as it is often obscure. Seems reasonable to keep this list here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmeader3 ( talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. east.718 at 08:25, December 22, 2007
Was created as a fork from Tip. Delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Most content unreferenced or poor quality references. Barrylb ( talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Self-sourced article on a political pressure group. Guy ( Help!) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete without prejudice (talk page kept) to re-creation should notability be established. A person who runs for office and fails to be elected may be otherwise notable (the best example in recent American history might be Ross Perot). As the evidence currently stands, Shane Sklar does not fall into that category; should his notability be established in relation to Ron Paul, the question would need to be asked "should Shane Sklar have an article or should he be relegated to a section of the article on Ron Paul?" on the basis of independent vs. inextricably dependent notability. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unnotable "politician" that never won any office, fails WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
- Politicians:
Politicians who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[9] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[10] Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone.
The result was keep. John254 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article about a non-notable band which has previously been deleted from Wikipedia. Have had one single in UK charts, but nothing else of notability. Egdirf ( talk) 21:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge→ Josh Groban: Prior to closure, the article had been redirected-without-merger to Josh Groban. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 15:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Insufficient content and verifiability to become a good article. It was suggested for AfD at Talk:Josh Groban (sorry if this nomination was categorized incorrectly). I80and ( talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy. Non-notable band. The band is an independent band not signed by an established major label or well-known indie label. The sources provided are dubious at best, including one that is obviously a video interview conducted by the author of this article, [User:Goldwingedlion]], which itself violates original research policies. (The video is hosted on goldwingedlion.com.) Moreover, the CDfreedom listing (which is linkspam) is apparently a listing by "goldwingedlion" according to the URL. It appears that, given these circumstances and the apparent conflict of interest, that this article and the companion Giuseppe Cotteli are really spam that the author tried to pass off as a legitimate article. Even if there were no COI/spam issues, the band would still not meet WP:BAND. No charted songs, no signing by a major label or recognized indie label, nothing more than trivial independent coverage. It's gotta go. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously prodded and deleted and subsequently recreated by User:Kitia, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Does not seem to pass WP:N. Of the Ghits, none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried about English-language bias, I note that the Japanese Wikipedia entry is completely unreferenced as well. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient for someone who died in 1975, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results. Cheers, CP 20:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Local branch. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DIT.YPDS. Soman ( talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Generally, we don't have separate articles for local branches of political parties and youth wings. This type of presentation is better adapted for facebook or myspace. Soman ( talk) 20:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It's a very prominant branch with lots of factual information contained in the information and it is no different to the following page from a rival local branch of a youth party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland%2C_Galway_YFG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.34.159 ( talk • contribs) so, assumably, if this article is to be deleted, which I would certainly protest because I think it is relevant, then surely the above link would also be deleted because it is the exact same category and idea, just with defferent names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dart22 ( talk • contribs)
You're entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, whilst this article may be of no interest to you, it may be of interest to people interested in Irish politics/youth politics. And surely like will be treated with like, so if this page is is deleted with reason then surely the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_Ireland%2C_Galway_YFG will also be delted? - Just to make sure wikipedia is fair and balanced in its directives on Irish politics/youth politics. However the above similar page has existed for quite some time without protest and I'm sure there are other pages just like it around, so I don't see don't what the problem is with making a similar page for a different party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dart22 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Seems redundant, since we have already List of PlayStation 2 games with PAL releases marked. Mika1h ( talk) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Vanity article about self-published musician. This article offers no assertion of notability and is of questionable veracity. ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Blanchardb: It's fine if you delete the links to where the artist's music can be purchased, but that does not negate the fact that the artist is a notable musician in the relevant genre. Omotorwayo ( talk) 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Anetode: I disagree and believe there is sufficient evidence and record sales history, which speaks to the artist's importance in musical genres mentioned. The page has already been confirmed as notable twice in the past. Omotorwayo ( talk) 20:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Anetode: Furthermore, given that the artist is currently on the German label ( http://suburbantrash.c8.com/), which is not the only label he has released music on, I don't see how he is "self-published." Omotorwayo ( talk) 21:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Uhh... so three record labels run by other people are self-sourced? I follow that logic 100%!
at this point i could care less if the page gets deleted because everyone here has proven to be so disgustingly ignorant of IDM/Electronic music that having a page on here would be bad for the artist's image.
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 04:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm going to put myself and my poor Google searching ability on the line for this one. I believe this to be a hoax, as I could not find any information on a "Richard Rhyde Rhodes" or "Richard Rhodes" that has any of the traits claimed by this article (there is plenty on this notable Richard Rhodes, but it is not the same person as this article). If he was on the Forbes 400 in 1992, for example, that should come up very quickly with a Google search, but I cannot seem to find anything on that, or anything else in this article, hence it seems to fail WP:V. If someone can provide sources, I would probably withdraw the nomination because he does seem to have at least some claim to notability (if he is indeed real). Cheers, CP 18:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
While the article is an interesting read, ultimately it appears to be original research. The term "Hellish science fiction" garners exactly one google hit while ""Lovecraftian science fiction" gets ten unique hits. With no references at all, I'm not sure this will ever be anything more than original research as the term just plain doesn't appear to be widespread. IrishGuy talk 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:27, December 22, 2007
The article has no references to establish notability per WP:FICTION, and thus without reliable sources per WP:RS. It has no information other than in-universe plot repetition derived from the plot sections of the Pokemon game articles, so it is also entirely duplicative. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 18:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
About someone's music class project that involves writing a piece of music via a Wiki. Not notable right now. Mr Senseless ( talk) 17:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. No asserted out-of-universe notability. Delete. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Listen all i did was turn a red link blue, So if the link turns red again i as a user must turn it blue. Deanostrodamus the Mystical ( talk) 13:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:29, December 22, 2007
It is completely unsourced, some of the text seems to have been copied/pasted with sentences moved around from other sites(such as the band's myspace) and whether the article asserts notability is questionable. AngelOfSadness talk 14:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. All such pages should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAnteaterNot ( talk • contribs) 2007/12/09 02:40:55
The result was Delete without prejudice to recreation if at least one solid source can be uncovered; the current ones just don't cut it. BLACKKITE 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
A non-notable group. Most of the sources are self-published. The only exceptions are Haaretz and YNet - these are well-established Israeli news sources, but the cited articles do not mention Avriri, but only certain persons which this page claims to be members of Avriri. Note - Googling for Avriri or the Hebrew name אוורירי is useless, because it's a common Hebrew word which meaning means something like "full with air" or "refreshing". You may try searching for אוורירי קמר (Avriri Kamer), but you won't find much more than Kamer's blogs.
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk)
10:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I was uncomfortable speedy deleting this under CSD A7, as it might be read to contain a weak of assertion of notability. Still, I see no real evidence of this supposedly scholarly family having done anything encyclopedic. Delete for failing WP:BIO. Xoloz ( talk) 03:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Xoloz ( talk) 21:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Mp4 23 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD)
The Reason I have put this article up for deleting is that it is incorrectly named, is should be Mclaren MP4-23 NOT Mp4 23, also if you type in McLaren MP4-23 is redirects to Team McLaren's page, which is the right thing to do as the car has not even been launched yet. The MP4-23 will be Team McLaren 2008 car. To give you an idea of what a article should look like, here is this years car McLaren MP4-22.
Neil Mundy ( talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This guy is a bit of a bohemian and a bit of a real-estate agent, and non-notable at either of these things. Google search for "Alon Kastiel" in English yields mostly Wikipedia clones, thanks to this article's inclusion in the Real estate category. The "BBC Interview" link is not really an interview with Kastiel, but an article about Israeli elections, which passingly mentions the guy. The only substantial source about Kastiel in English is this article in Haaretz, which actually discusses pretty serious matters of Israeli wars, but has very little to do with this article and still doesn't establish notability of the person (the whole point of that article is that Kastiel is not unique). Searching in Hebrew for "אלון קסטיאל" yields results which are only marginally more substantial: they talk about a few lofts that he bought and sold and a few parties that he threw in them - mostly gossip-y material. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G7 (blanked by only editor) by Snowolf ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Characters from a fictional work don't merit their own article unless independent notability can be established. I see no where where these characters are discussed in reliable sources, and the main article can deal with them just fine. See WP:WAF and WP:FICT. Jayron32| talk| contribs 18:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wholly unreferenced stub article on someone claimed to be the oldest man ever born in the USA, which is not a bad assertion of notability … but even if there wre some references to support that assertion, there would also need to be some substantial coverage in
reliable sources for him to be notable per
WP:BIO. I have searched for refs, but didn't expect to find much since he died in 1985: see
Google books search,
google news search 1,
google news search 2 - the search is complicated by the two possible spellings of Matthew/Mathew and the presence of many other Mat(t)hew Beards, though Gnews did throw up two subscription-only hits in old local newspapers which may or may be relevant, but which in either case do not seem substantial.
[13]
[14]
Meanwhile the article consists almost entirely of unsourced speculation about Beard's place in the longevity rankings. He is listed in
List of the oldest people#List and in
Oldest people#Oldest_men_ever_.28top_10.29, which is quite sufficient unless and until there is something substantive to write about him from reliable sources. There may be printed sources which are not available online, and if they are found then the article could of course be recreated at a later date if substantial coverage is found in
reliable sources. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs)
17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Comment And then his case is questionable. Might not be 114.
Neal (
talk)
18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC).
reply
The result was delete. Concerns about notability and the quality of sourcing were not met. east.718 at 08:33, December 22, 2007
Non-notable and no reliable sources.
In all, the article presents the subject as the secondary co-author of two books and four articles (linked to from the primary author Poltorak's web site), none of which are the subject of any independent critical reviews. It also tries to promote the subject as having argued a case in the CAFC that was cited in a single sentence in the MPEP, a publication thousands of pages long. Other biographical and career info does not distinguish the subject as deserving of an independent Wikipedia article -- just and an attorney, adjunct professor, and executive of a firm of unknown size.
This article has been fluffed up in an attempt to make the author appear notable, but on closer inspection this person does not meet WP:BIO and the article is not supported with reliable sources.
Emcee ( talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. I was tempted to delete this, but it may be useful as a repository for many minor characters that currently have their own unnecessary articles (see the merge tags). However, it needs to be heavily cleaned up, all WP:OR excised, and trivial characters removed. A future AfD may take note of this close. BLACKKITE 17:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The title of this list is the first thing that's problematic: in addition to "minor" suggesting a lack of notability for these characters, "villain" is non- WP:NPOV; for the same reason various "Villain/hero in X franchise/text" have been deleted for lack of clear inclusion criteria, the boundaries of this list are vague -- for example, Yun in one plot path in the game he appears in heroically defends the player's character. Well, I'd call it heroic -- it's my own belief, not cited anywhere. The article has been tagged for additional references since January 2006, and most of the seven are two primary sources conveying just plot summary. Additionally, only one source has been added since May; the content is overwhelmingly plot summary and unverified original research. I realize some editors are touchy about deleting these lists of...; I point toward this AfD as precedent for similar removal (which didn't have the non-NPOV title issues). -- EEMIV ( talk) 17:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, no explanation of notability, no claim or evidence the plays of this playwright have ever been published or performed, google finds no evidence notability. Weregerbil ( talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not only is this a minor fictional character that doesn't warrant an article, the article is unsourced and unreferenced. MovieMadness ( talk) 16:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't believe the subject of this article meets notability criteria, but I wasn't quite sure enough for a PROD. He has written a book, but it doesn't seem to have done particularly well. The unsourced details in the article, especially in the "personal life" section, make me wonder if there's a WP:COI issue here. Joyous! | Talk 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete did not assert notability, in addition to COI, SOCK & other concerns. SkierRMH ( talk) 20:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 10:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
procedural nomination— article version at time of AFD Article nominated for PROD-deletion with rejection in October 2007, then re-PROD'd in December 2007. First PROD nominator stated: "UScentric slang word, un-encyclopedic". Second PROD nominator stated: "this is a neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang." User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 14:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Whether we need the new disambiguation at Brownbagging is debatable. It's really only disambiguating between the aforementioned and the concept of a packed lunch, whose article is a stub and wherein discussion of the sorts of places one takes a packed lunch to, and what one takes it in, obviously belong. A headnote disambiguation would have done just as well as a full disambiguation article. But I have no strong opinion on removing the full disambiguation article now that it exists. Uncle G ( talk) 18:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (A7) by Irishguy. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 01:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
non-notable music producer. The Triple J Unearthed dance charts are for "up-and-coming" artists and do not in my mind confer notability. No secondary sources or references, and a quick Google search on "Gavin Edom" reveals only two pages other than Wikipedia. As an aside, most of the work on this article has been done by User:Gavin Edom, which adds a dash of WP:COI to the whole matter. Lankiveil ( talk) 14:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod about a computer game that Google only finds mentioned on Wikipedia. [17] Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. -- Allen3 talk 14:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Multiple sources establish its Notability. Non-admin closure. NAH ID 20:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, no notability. Amir E. Aharoni ( talk) 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. The author states, in the edit summary of the article's creation, that he created this page to resolve a dispute in a private blog. Delete. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 13:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and recreate as redirect to Spamdexing. Sandstein ( talk) 16:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. Most ghits return blogs related to farms, not blog farms. Delete. Blanchardb- Me MyEars MyMouth-timed 12:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and rename. Addhoc ( talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
{{ prod}} removed after a single reference was added. The article had been completely unreferenced for more than six months. It's almost completely original research. Mikeblas ( talk) 12:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I did, and found ISBN 0596008848, page 587 of ISBN 1592730043, page 30 of ISBN 1584503440, page 177 of ISBN 0761532994, page 392 of ISBN 1584500778, and page 264 of ISBN 3540245758 (a.k.a. doi: 10.1007/b106134) in under 2 minutes. There's even this from which further tidbits of knowledge on this subject can be gleaned.
Look for sources yourself and try to fix the article. Only bring articles to AFD if, after looking, you cannot find sources from which to make an article. And don't be afraid of boldly rewriting unsourced content into fully-sourced brilliant prose, and of merging, renaming, and refactoring articles about tangentially documented subjects into articles about the overall subjects that sources document — none of which require AFD. Uncle G ( talk) 13:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 13:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial product. Notability supported only by product reviews. Too few substantial references exist to support a viable Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory, and Wikipedia is also not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Mikeblas ( talk) 11:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Originally tagged for {{ prod}} by Marasmusine with the rationale "Neologism". The prod tag was removed. I am therefore bringing this to AfD as a clear contraventon of WP:NEO. There are no Ghits on this term in context, and it doesn't appear in any dictionary that I've looked in Tonywalton Talk 11:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Minor fictional characters from KND with no sign of real world notability. I am also nominating the following related pages because they also fail to define notability either in real world or in-universe guides:
The result was Delete. The arguments against merging were unrebutted and persuasive. Xoloz ( talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be independently notable from its parent, all references are primary, also reads like an advert. {{mergeto}} tag removed by author. BLACKKITE 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. If any editor would like to merge some of the content with Dead Sea or Michael Sinclair Sanders, I will provide the deleted text. BLACKKITE 17:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No Reliable sources. Nehwyn ( talk) 08:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted per CSD G4. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Hockey League, was to delete.
League that didn't come to fruition in 2006, didn't come to fruition in 2007, and now, according to their official website, will exist in 2008. Let's not leave this around for another couple of years in hopes that it might exist, let's wait till it really exists. Corvus cornix talk 08:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The advertizing aspect is not so blatant to qualify for speedy, so the issue shifts to notability, where the arguments for keep are stronger.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Blatant advertising. Corvus cornix talk 08:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Original author has major conflict of interest, as the CDfreedom catalog page for this artist's band Sheiks of Sheba (which is up for speedy, as this article was originally) contains the author's username in its URL. No other reliable, independent sources are provided. The author is apparently promoting the band and its lead singer, violating WP:SPAM. The artist also fails WP:MUSIC. See Talk:Sheiks of Sheba for related deletion discussions. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 08:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
9 Google hits none of which are relevant. Zero media. Party of which he is the 'leader' is not incorporated or recognized in Canada. Completely NN. Chabuk [ T • C ] 08:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
10 google hits, zero media. Party of which he is the "leader" is not incorporated. Inherently NN. Chabuk [ T • C ] 08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:36, December 22, 2007
Non-notable company. Has been speedily deleted once as spam. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 07:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Singu larity 20:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable manga artist. Of three sources, 2 are 404s and 1 is a user-contributed manga site. Google search reveals mostly author-atributions, a fanfic site or two, and no critical commentary on the artist. Google News has no hits. Even if some of these works of art are notable, notability doesn't transfer. Therefore, proposed for deletion. Mbisanz ( talk) 07:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:37, December 22, 2007
Fails WP:FICT, mostly unsourced WP:Plot. Tagged for lack of notability since August with no change. Collectonian ( talk) 07:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:FICT. 1 year old fictional baby on the show. No establishment of notability in the article, not even the name of the baby actor(s) playing him. Collectonian ( talk) 06:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. east.718 at 08:39, December 22, 2007
Fails WP:FICT, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Pure, unadulterated WP:PLOT that is also extremely redundant when there is already an article each for Ethan Winthrop and Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald Crane. Collectonian ( talk) 06:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No established editor has put forward an argument for retention here, so the decision is easy and unanimous. Xoloz ( talk) 21:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Was previously speedied by User:Alabamaboy and contested (see user's talk page). I'm guessing it was deleted, as the date on that was October 22nd while the page was created on December 8th.
Anyway, a Google search turns up no hits aside from those on Wikipedia. Proposing delete per WP:NOTABILITY. Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 03:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Can't find anything about the book or said author, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 06:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as blatant hoax. Glass Cobra 07:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The records listed in this article are completely fraudulent. A google search for "Brian O'Connell juggling" turns up no one with the name Brian O'Connell who is a world-class juggler. Additionally, these are the exact records and durations that world-class juggler Anthony Gatto has attained, with proof, on his website and JISCON (and copied directly from AG's WP page). This page needs to be deleted immediately. Rahzel ( talk) 05:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Based on the discussion, it satisfies WP:N. Non-admin closure. NAH ID 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I could see an article on TV programming in the 50's. Maybe even for individual seasons. But a programming grid? WP:NOT a (very old, very outdated) TV guide. — Coren (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
An actor "best known" for a role in a made-for-TV holiday docudrama hardly meets WP:BIO. — Coren (talk) 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable fictional character. No sources. — Coren (talk) 05:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Pigman ☿ 20:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable self-published (AuthorHouse) author, no references or sources Accounting4Taste: talk 04:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. There isn't really enough discussion to draw a firm conclusion here, but the matter can be handled editorially with a redirect, and so it shall be. Xoloz ( talk) 21:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Dozen Furies (2nd nomination) was for the winners of Battle for Ozzfest, this article on one of other groups, which is still planning on releasing their debut album next year, probably doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to relevant district. Singu larity 08:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school. Deprodded without explanation. Closedmouth ( talk) 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Singu larity 08:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Was speedied as lacking assertions of notability. Article was recreated without addressing that concern. There is no evidence that this camp has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources; the basic requirements of notability. Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete based on strength of arguments. There may be reason for an article on this topic, but the present article doesn't make a case from reliable sources that this is so. I'll be glad to userfy for sourcing upon polite request; the case for the article was not helped by the needlessly aggressive tone of the article's author. (I considered a merge and redirection, but this particular title is probably best redirected to devil. Xoloz ( talk) 21:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Deletion nomination Article is about a single character from a single movie. There is no evidence at all that reliable sources have discussed this character to this depth at all. This is largely original research and there is NO independent verification of any of this information at all. This takes an entirely in-universe perspective as well, in violation of WP:WAF and WP:FICT guidelines. This is not surprising, as no reliable sources seem to have dealt with this topic in any significant way. Jayron32| talk| contribs 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Of course, if you are saying that you cannot do citations because there are no books, articles, papers, and so forth that your information is coming from, then you have just explained why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the place for primary research, and is not a publisher of first instance. It's an encyclopaedia. Uncle G ( talk) 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The Lord of Darkness has been the subject of two action figures, a 7" figure by McFarlane Toys and one 1/4 scale model by SOTA toys. [29]
I have since added three more.
Will that suffice? Hmm?
-- Illustrious One ( talk) 20:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
So you suggest deleting this entire article and moving all the numerous facts it contains to the Legend article. If that happens don't you think the Legend article will be just a bit big? What would be the point? Just give the guy an article, he deserves it. He's the most well-known character from a well-known cult film and the article has citations, external links, it's informative, is written from an out-of-universe perspective and it provides a broad range of information on various topics. All it needs is an image and it will be feature article standard for the love of God! What what would be the point in deleting it? -- Illustrious One ( talk) 15:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The entire personality section is a composition of obvious facts that are drawn from the movie. The thing about Ganon (with one "n" by the way) being based on him is a well-known rumour that is also mentioned in the Legend article if you'd care to have a look. Merry Christmas. -- Illustrious One ( talk) 16:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog, and this article is nothing more than a description of the phone's features. Insufficient substantial third-party sources exist to carry a viable Wikipedia article on this product. The article is just a list of features and essentially unreferenced. Listing for AfD after {{ prod}} removed. Mikeblas ( talk) 01:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 16:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy because notability is asserted in the form of multiple publications, and talk page discussion. My opinion is to delete, but that this did not meet speedy deletion requirements. - Philippe | Talk 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:N (people). Non-admin closure. NAH ID 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Pata
Non-notable player. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. There's nothing here that claims that this particular football player was notable. There was a previous AfD, which apparently resulted in the article being kept, but nothing has changed since then in this article which explains how this murder victim is somehow different from any other murder victim. Corvus cornix talk 03:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was 'Already speedy deleted. Bduke ( talk) 04:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Notability concerns; after a search I could not find any reliable third-party sources, and the article itself reads like an advertisement. There is also a copyright concern; the article is more or less lifted from www.theheer.com. Pirate Mink 03:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, obvious hoax. Sandahl 08:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Suspected hoax; a search for Barry Cook and Melbourne Victory brings up nothing but a wikipedia mirror, not to mention that someone who is apparently 17 probably hasn't been playing professional football for at least 6 years. Pirate Mink 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 13:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Per WP:FICT. Does not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction and lack secondary sources ( real world information.) More than enough information is available here. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 02:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable manga artist. No sources given. Google search reveals entry on user-contributed managa encyclopedia. Further google shows little if any commentary on individual. While her comic may be notable through its article here and on google search, notability doesn't transfer. Also, no hits on google news, other then a listing of a sale of manga. All points at not-notable Mbisanz ( talk) 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete (G5) by Dreadstar. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 05:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article already exists at Anaheim Hills, Anaheim, California, this new article has been made from edits on the original that were reverted. Pirate Mink 02:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Multiple reliable sources are available in this entrey, which apparently proves its notability. Non-admin closure.-- NAH ID 19:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Nominated purely for notability issues, not to mention there are plenty of murder victims in the world and unlike Rhys Jones, this article isn't going to do anything to deserve its own article, not to mention that this is not a memorial site. Wiki Deleting Machine ( talk) 02:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) — Wiki Deleting Machine ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was utter garbage. DS ( talk) 04:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
smells hoaxy to me, nothing on google Amaryllis25 "Talk to me" 01:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep certainly no deletion consensus Docg 18:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unable to find any references other than those relating to his children. Fails WP:Notability Toddst1 ( talk) 01:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Sockpuppets may be involved in this discussion. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/James brown1605. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
But he is also the agent for The Neville Brothers and has gained notoriety amongst the media, partly for his amusing name, but also for his antics at the last world cup, where he was seen partying drunkenly with the WAGS (wives and girlfriends of footballers) in Germany ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=392175&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5) and was also involved in a campaign to save Bury F.C from falling into administration ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/b/bury/1867131.stm) and this quote shows how he saved them from extinction: "Neville tirelessly organised supporters groups, gave media interviews, worked closely with the administrators, and finally arranged a deal which would ultimately save the Shakers from extinction. We owe him a huge debt." ( http://www.buryfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/ForeverBury/0,,10422,00.html,) he is joined by his wife, Jill Neville on the board of Bury F.C to complete an extraordinary sporting family. I feel there is sufficient material and significance to keep this article. 86.142.104.27 ( talk) 22:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
and his role in saving Bury F.C and becoming a director there? John Henry Davies (link below) has his own article merely based upon this, in this case for Manchester United, therefore shouldn't Mr. Neville? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Henry_Davies) 86.142.104.27 ( talk) 23:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep Surely how notable someone is varies from reader to reader? I have no doubt that i will not have heard of some people that you consider to be notable whereas neville neville would be considered to be notable by a large number of people i know. The fact that someone has created a page for him and others have condoned it on this discussion page proves his notability. Just a thought but perhaps those people that know of Neville (ie football fans of which there are millions in the UK) aren't the type of people to come and fight his corner on these types of discussion page? His name is precisely one of those commonly quoted facts that people (like me) come to this website in order to verify. I think its ridiculous that such a public website like wikipedia can only have on it articles that everyone agrees with. Just accept the fact that while this article might not be pertinent to you it will prove useful to others and move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.223.114 ( talk) 13:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
noted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marktherufftheryder ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment, this probably puts it to bed - agent for two premiership footballers-- Vintagekits ( talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
"getting stronger by the day?" Marktherufftheryder is right, it is the combined issues and the increasing amount of references that makes him notable. 86.142.104.27 ( talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unsuccessful candidate in an election. Only other claim to notability is that he's the son of a former congressman and the brother of another--but notability is not inherited. Blueboy 96 01:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Consensus at deletion review was to send this here. Note that the current stub was written by Danny; see the history for the longer version. This version had been deleted as a copyright violation at one time, but permission has been cleared through OTRS. The content is not encyclopedic, however; whether the topic itself is should be judged in this forum. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Chuck Palahniuk, we don't need to go through the bureaucracy of AfD for that. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
We usually don't see authors' websites' articles, so I really don't think this is the same. This doesn't really seem notable, either. — Jonathan 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 10:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Was Proposed for Deletion, but I'm moving it to AfD since it's an old article and the creator and many of the major contributors no longer seem to be active - let's give it a proper discussion. -- Stormie ( talk) 04:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD reason given by User:John Broughton is:
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Site" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.248.48.55 ( talk) 19:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was transfer to Wikibooks. east.718 at 08:42, December 22, 2007
A mathematical proof is not necessarily encylopedic. These involve some simple rearrangement of formula so not notable as an interesting/unusual proof. Salix alba ( talk) 09:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy%27s_surface/Proofs
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 00:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not notable (4 Google hits on "virtual resource partitioning"). Ddxc ( talk) 10:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Sandstein ( talk) 16:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No reliable third party sources, only in-universe view, only fan fiction as source. -- Pjacobi ( talk) 11:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
My original deletion rationale seems to be too terse. Let me elaborate a bit. Perpetual motion devices are fiction. As such, they are only in so far relevant to us, as they left significant traces in the real world, e.g. some million dollars from gullible investors vanished or a good enough publicity stunt by the inventors to get mainstream media coverage. It is not our business to mirror Free Energy websites like http://www.americanantigravity.com/, http://www.peswiki.com or the Naudin site. Even with constant purging of the most offending ones, we now again have more than 70 links to http://www.americanantigravity.com/! Isn't it mentioned in our policies to use unreliable sources only -- if at all -- in articles about themselves? The typical example given on policy pages tends to be stormfront.org, but in terms of unreliability americanantigravity.com is second to none. -- Pjacobi ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
But are we better off having no article, or a short article which reflects the mainstream view that these things are bunk? In either case, trolls and the gullible will regularly reintroduce offending articles or content. LeContexte ( talk) 22:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Docg 10:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This subject is of borderline notability, imo. I just don't know if it notable enough, or not.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply