The result was Speedy Keep: obvious case of misinterpretation of WP:NOTE and/or a case of WP:POINT. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete This is an article about an unimportant subject. The Talking Mac ( talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Pokemon Trading Card Game. Keilana talk (recall) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is redundant with the article on the Pokemon Trading Card Game and this article demonstrates no notability of its own through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Complete lack of reliable sources, especially of the caliber that are generally required for a biography of a living person. The vast majority of cites are to Usenet posts, or to the subject's own website. A few others are to blogs and self-published websites, none of which are generally considered reliable sources. There is also original research, like the statement that Conrad claims to have appeared on Larry King Live followed by a Google search of CNN.com which shows no hits. There is no evidence that this person is at all notable in the real world, as opposed to the self-contained world of Usenet. In the past, we've deleted articles like Willy on Wheels, Slashdot subculture, and Gay Nigger Association of America for being too self-referential and lacking any reliable sources. This article should be removed for the same reason. *** Crotalus *** 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
As for the WWW: Of the 88 actual web pages that Google Web turns up, some are entries in directories of either "wacky websites" or "criticism of Darwinism websites", the overwhelming majority are pseudonymous discussion fora postings, exactly four are the very (and only) four independent sources cited in this article, none of which actually document M. Conrad xyrself (only xyr arguments), and the remainder … turn out to have been written by M. Conrad xyrself.
The hypothesis is only documented in its rebuttal, with no evidence that it qualifies as anything other than original research that the rest of the world does not acknowledge, and the person is not reliably documented at all. Uncle G ( talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Sufficient keep consensus after 5 days. Non-administrator close. Rt . 20:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established. DimaG ( talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Seems to be a memorial for writer's mother (see edit revisions). As much as I hate being a jerk, WP:NOT a memorial. Carados ( talk) 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Pigman ☿ 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Musician with questionable notability. Dougie WII ( talk) 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability. Virtually impossible to do google search, and the article contains absolutely zero references. No evidence that his band The Clerics is notable. No evidence that this is anything more than a perpetual stub of non-notability. Keeper | 76 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete both as hoaxes. BLACKKITE 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. At end of AfD, the article remains unsourced and without WP:V support. Pigman ☿ 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested CSD, tagged for notability concerns. Kei lana (recall) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Logical NOR; the history remains if anyone wants to merge. Keilana talk (recall) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about an anachronistic turn-of-the-century term for the NOR logical operator (and sometimes NAND as well). Could not find any evidence that the term is still in significant use. Original article consisted mostly of original research by a fan of the term's inventor. Tried to rewrite the article, but could not locate sufficient secondary sources to do the topic justice. The last paragraph is still original research, but I haven't removed it since the article doesn't make much sense without it. I don't think the subject can ever spawn a decent article, nor do I believe that it passes the notabilty requirements. I would suggest changing the article into a redirect to Logical NOR as this is what the term most often refers to. (Also, the article's original author has requested that the article be deleted, although that editor has been banned, so I wouldn't put much weight on that consideration.) Kaldari ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, with a strong suggestion for expansion. Keilana talk (recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable article per WP:V about a possible upcoming videogame. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mh29255 ( talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Llanelli#Primary and secondary based on the informed reasoning of Dahliarose and Sam Blacketer. – Pomte 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school per WP:N. Mh29255 ( talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a Hoax. BLACKKITE 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Strongly suspect this is a hoax -- no record found at Billboard of any such album or group Accounting4Taste: talk 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW and invalid nomination rationale. Paul Cyr ( talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
the article is going to continue more mass killings in the Islamic area. Eldorado91 ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Canadian Bobby ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per overriding WP:V concerns. No reliable, third-party sources about this ... venture ... have been cited in either the article or the AfD; the numerous self-published pamphlets and the like are not reliable sources. Also, most of the article's content reads like patent nonsense. This may be the artistic point of whoever is behind this, but not of Wikipedia. Sandstein ( talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable organization with no verifiable third-party references. This was previously nominated for deletion, but the questionable result was a weak keep, leaning toward merge. However, the same problems still linger. There is simply no verifiable information to say this group even exists, and if it does, that it is of any relevance or importance. Once again, it should be deleted or merged with Stewart Home.- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
* Delete Without any context, it's borderline
WP:NONSENSE. I'm not even sure what context would make it make sense.
WP:NOT at any rate.
Ψν
Psi
nu 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
These are all verifiable third party sources. User:RepublicanJacobite may be unacquainted with tghis material, but his speculation that Home was behind them all should be treated like the idea that Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. It is unfortuante that User:RepublicanJacobite is so adrift on this point, and tries to divert us with his idle speculation fuelled by a log holiday and his strange obsession with Stewart Home (unleess of course he is Stewart Home Sock puppet himself! Harrypotter ( talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable contestant ( WP:N) in a Whales beauty pageant that did not ultimately win. Mh29255 ( talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - The page is a fork of the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Religious violence in India. There is no new info presented. It also is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated incidents and should be deleted as such. Baka man 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that notability has not been established by enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild ( talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I'm not convinced by the sources provided that this website is notable enough for inclusion. A large portion of the "ScoreHero in the Media" section describes certain users of the site, and not the site itself. It's also a rather serious issue that the name of a 9 year old is included in this article, which opens up a couple of WP:BLP issues, although those can be fixed. Sean William @ 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It does not fall under one category anymore, it fits in more than one, so you can't just put it in one. It would be more logical in my opinion to put this as related articles for the Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, and any other game this site will include in the future. Plerrius ( talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Anyway, I vote keep. Not like I have to state that, though. I've already said what I think about the issues addressed. -- Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTFILM Mayalld ( talk) 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep it's notable in the context of the Philippines. -- Chris S. ( talk) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Project Genesis. Davewild ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is just plot repetition taken from the Star Trek movie articles and has no notability or referencing of its own. As such, its just plot repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Keilana talk (recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I love Star Trek, but this article should be at a Star Trek wiki and not on Wikipedia, as it lacks notability and referencing, and as such just repeats, in an in-universe way, the plot of various Star Trek episodes and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, it seems to me that this AFD was inappropriate, given the short time between DRV and AFD. Keilana talk (recall) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a trade organisation, which is sourced from its journals, its press releases, its publications and not much else. The organisation has a journal, holds meetings, mas members, a chairman and officers. In which, of course, it is indistinguishable form any other organisation. It has 3,000 members. That is a very small association. The National Association of Women's Clubs in the UK has more than twice that, I know because my mum is an officer. I suspect WP:COI on the part of the three-times-creator and sole editor. Tone of the article is inappropriately promotional. Deletion review of my speedy was requested by user:Davolson who has fewer than 20 mainspace editos over a period of more than a year; the webmaster of PDMA is... Dave Olson. Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn on the basis that reliable sources have been presented. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (GMT)
Just a side road of California State Route 39. There is no evidence to establish/support its notability. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
The result was Keep. Keilana talk (recall) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is an in-universe plot repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia book articles, and has no notability or referencing outside of them. As such, this is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that he does meet the relevant notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has been tagged with notability issues for some time and fails to assert notability per WP:N. Tag to speedily delete was removed. Mh29255 ( talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of a previous prod [9], the article has drifted since then into incomprehensible nonsense. The only reason I'm not prodding again is its previous prod. Fails WP:NN and WP:PN "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The principal argument for deletion is that this concept, either as "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" or as "Pakistanphobia", is not the subject of sufficient reliable sources. A random sampling of the article's references confirms this. The "keep" opinions do not address this WP:NEO/ WP:SYNTH issue. Sandstein ( talk) 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is getting flooded with 'anti-foo-ism' or 'foo-phobia' articles. Generally, these are concepts constructed within wikipedia, disparate incidents and vague understandings of chauvinistic feelings are grouped together for political purpose. Just cause there is a antisemitism article doesn't mean that every ethnic/religious/national group should have its own 'anti-' article. There absolutely no reation between chauvinism in India and discrimination against Pakistani migrants in the US. Soman ( talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that he fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable writer who fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete both. Davewild ( talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Album with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article. Band's article has been repeated deleted as non-notable and is now salted. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The places for publishing novel theories in physics, and peer reviewing them, are physics journals. Please use them. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Please go elsewhere to publish your novel theories to the world. This is not the place. Uncle G ( talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone in this very onesided discussion actually comprehends the theory. It is verifiable by the Haffle and Keating experiment results. Discoveries are documented in Wikipedia. If
TBR is valid, it is a discovery. IMO, there is no one yet in this
conversation qualified to prove or disprove it's validity or significance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Steve D. Gage (
talk •
contribs) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Real world significance? One point of TBR is that there is no linear motion in the Universe [motion in a straight line]. It literally cannot be accomplished. Even in drawing a line with a ruler, the earth has turned, and revolved around the sun. You have drawn an arc. This and other significant points in the theory lead to the logic of the true nature of motion, force, time dilation, etc. If it is correct showing Special Relativity to be less than fully descriptive or correct, we should keep the faulty theory link here and delete the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
At the top of this page it says "help wikipedia change the world." New information does just that. Steve D. Gage ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No, if you look at it more closely, they're implying that money does that, a far more accurate assertion. Also, since you're a Man of Science, by now you should have realized that you're pushing against the limits of the Sixth Law of Wikidynamics: "The strength of the protest of the originator against an AfD is inversely proportional to the merit of the item." Consider yourself advised. Ψν Psi nu 11:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Garou: Mark of the Wolves. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Short article covering a non-notable fictional character with no sources. Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Airhawk. Pagra shtak 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable, no sources and no google hits. Seems to fail WP:BAND. Harland1 ( t/ c) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
listen wile i understand your justifiable cause to keep wiki free from self promotion it would have been easy for me to log on under an assumed name and post as a fan. i did not my e-mail address and name are open to see and would be happy to post them. we were an influential band at one point the biggest unsigned metal band touring and recording demos. i think our entry is fully justifiable. hopefullly it was correctly spelt and not one long advert. please advise how we could get a listing then, maybe if we cheat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
and i totaly understand this however in total we probably sold 4K+ and toured extensivly. by your standards radiohead would now be in danger because they are not signed to a major lable but there own! delete it if it makes you feel better but i thorgh the whole point of this was to have fun and enlighten people maybe its just so a select band of people can act as god? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Antony marshall (
talk •
contribs) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete Your method of arguing grows increasingly strange, especially when you begin comparing this band to Radiohead, which has sufficient documentation establishing their notability. As of yet this article has no sources whatsoever, and if you have any that support this bands claim to notability, then I might consider changing my vote. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
i was not asking for radioheads entry to be deleted just said that if major label status was needed then theres a point in question right there. i understand the rules please feel free to deleate as it is the crime of the century to have someone most people have never heard of on wiki. by the way i run a pub probably one of the most sucsessful out there we have won or been runner up in 9 major awards in 2 years and shortlisted in 2 others next year (including the proud of pubs pub of the year award in the publican awards) could i enter this pub in wiki?? oh no because most people have not heard of it! please deleate this as it will make you all feel great and who am i to stop this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 ( talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
jesus read the post i am NOT comparing us to radiohead jesus i hate there music anyway! we were far better! only joking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 ( talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
yep no prob. i know in the great scheem of things we were nothing but big up the little guy. oh and our guitar player has collated all our demos for our planned myspace page but if it does not fit then sorry im very new to wiki.
thanks we are not after a contract as we now are all married kids ect just recording our little band for postrerity. by the way we were in numours magazine in the late 80's early 90's still we tried ah haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article fails verifiability, since the only reference given is a blog posting. Accordingly, the absence of coverage fails to establish the notability of this game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the youth hostel or before leaving university for summer break. Finally, the culture section borders somewhere between original research and POV. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Promotional EP with no claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that this list does not fail any policies and should be kept. Davewild ( talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This seems to violate: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Every location in a notable book series, doesn't automatically make every location notable. The important locations have articles already, and are linked from the template as well. Also I want to point out: this had a prod on it, but was removed for no reason. RobJ1981 ( talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J Milburn's argument is pursuasive. If Mr. Boyle becomes a subject of coverage (rather than a passing mention) by reliable sources in the future, the article can be recreated.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not convinced that simply being a candidate for govenor is enough assertion of notability. Press attention appears to have been minimal. J Milburn ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
While Mr. Boyle's media impact may not very large, he has had a significant impact on the people and politics of New Hampshire. A great deal of Mr. Boyle's progressive efforts have been stunted by Concord, New Hampshire officials. This entry is an attempt to document his achievements precisely because the media attention he has received has been unreservedly underwhelming. With time, this content of this page will rival the deeds of David Carleton Boyle. People need to hear of his story and life because the noblest spirit embiggens the smallest man
The Concord Monitor and Fox News don't count as reliable sources? Boyle is a homeless person running for President. His platform is very strange, though there is not yet any material about it online. If it emerges, I'll add it to the article. In the meantime, why the rush to get rid of facts about him? Why does notability rest on the whims of mainstream media? 71.194.38.132 ( talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. --
AndrewHowse (
talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
There's no suggestion above that Wikipedia doesn't need reliable sources. The suggestion is that The Concord Monitor and Fox News are reliable sources. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.194.38.132 (
talk) 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was nomination withdrawn- I'm an idiot, and didn't research this properly. I will redirect the article to the more substantial article on the same person. J Milburn ( talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a news service. This person has no notability outside of certain court cases, and not much notability within them. We cannot have a full biography about this person, and the article could potentially have coatrack and BLP problems. J Milburn ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. delldot talk 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as improved.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable band Mhking ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Goferwiki ( talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Prod and prod removed. Myself and another editor tried to help the author of this article in bringing it up to standards, 2 weeks later he has done nothing to improve it or provide us with info so we can improve it (see his talk page. The claim to notability in this article is that this person was the defendant in a landmark case, but that's clearly not true (it was a trial case), and the outcome isn't really that shocking: He was accused of car theft, but never intended to steal the car, so he was acquitted on that charge. Not uncommon (that's why we have the crime of joyriding). Summary: Neither the person nor the case are notable, despite the fluff piece used as a source. UsaSatsui ( talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable company. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete I searched for a mention of Sunplus Data Group in a reliable secondary sources and was unable to find anything. Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Redirect. SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as A7 (non notable web content) by me. J Milburn ( talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as A7 (non notable group} by me. J Milburn ( talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy G1 by Nlu. Tevildo ( talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Orphaned and obsolete with New York Yankees seasons already existing. Ksy92003 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable cellular phone. Too few substantial third-party references exist to write a meaningful article about this product. Indeed, after removing un-encyclopedic catalog information (an unreferenced "features" list), there's really nothing left. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone catalog. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy G7 by Od_Mishehu. Tevildo ( talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Reads like advertising of a church. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but deletion template removed by user. It does not meet notability criteria. NAH ID 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about a single, seemingly unnotable ride at a theme park. Mostly just a detailed description of the ride with quite a bit of stuff that reads like original research. Tagged as unreferenced since March and still unaddressed, seeming to indicate there are none available. Collectonian ( talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both after transwiki. Sandstein ( talk) 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornix talk 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all to Kultur Shock. While I have closed Kultur Shock's own AfD as keep, I do not believe that these articles stand alone, as none of them contain any content other than a tracklist and a non-free cover image. No prejudice against converting them back into stand-alone articles in the unlikely event that some reliably sourced content can be added. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn apparently self-released album from band that is either nn or just barely so (to be determined below), and three more also:
The result was keep - while it is hard to determine the exact notability of the band due to so much of the coverage referenced being in non-English-language publications, there is sufficient evidence that I have to say "when in doubt, don't delete". -- Stormie ( talk) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and the article will be moved as well. -- JForget 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has no prior versions that are free of POV pushing. It was created by a single edit account, and it has become a coat rack. I believe that there is insufficient NPOV content to support a separate article. Any useful content can be merged into Slavery or one of it's sub-articles. If this discussion results in keeping the article, then it must be moved to an NPOV title such as Judaism and slavery. We already have Islam and Slavery, and Christianity and slavery so we should follow that convention. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Amended 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No verified notability, no sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. JodyB talk 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I declined the speedy because it claims to be a notable, important person. I strongly suspect this to be a hoax but that is not a CSD justification. The sourcing is poor and does not verify notability. This, in my judgment, fails the following: WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. JodyB talk 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
As a person whose entire notability is for serving on the Baltimore City Council, she fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians having never served at the international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office nor recieved significant coverage other than for the routine duties / election of a city councilperson. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily redirected as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikee Lee. Uncle G ( talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not only is the page ambiguous, the said person (Mikee Lee) is not notable beyond being a housemate for Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Also, it uses only one's given name as the article title, not the appropriate name for it. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - it had at least 2 days to expand but failed to do so. -- JForget 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I have simply started a page. It will be completed soon, and will be a complete encyclopedia of Smasher Films history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge Actually, maybe merge this with Universal Studios. We are a similar company, who both put out good films, so I would be relatively happy for the merge to happen, even if we are a better company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete - Google search reveals only one 49 second "film" on YouTube, an alleged trailer for a movie that doesn't exist. No mention at all of this "established" film company on imdb.com.- Hal Raglan ( talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge - the film will be completed shortly, and we don't have an imdb page yet. We currently have around 20 films which are released on DVD (Debt and Dead, Live Another Day...I hope), so we are quite established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Marasmusine ( talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about a community-hosted server running tabletop games. The community and server are not notable. SharkD ( talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected to the Holy Rosary Academy dabpage. This was created at the same time by the same author of Holy Rosary Academy (Alaska). I've moved the infobox there, and otherwise the content is the same. Edit history is intact. – Pomte 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete this because it is an exact copy of the already existing Holy Rosary Academy article! -- Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that it notable. Strongly suggest adding some of the sources identified below to the article. Davewild ( talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable book, tagged thus since March. May fail WP:BK, but it is a close call for me. It's been mentioned in reviews in the news, by quite a few different newspapers, but not much else of an impact. Montchav ( talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game guide. No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of D&D publications. Gavin Collins ( talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. Already prodded a couple of times. Montchav ( talk) 13:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus, (closed by non-admin). RMHED ( talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another school previously prodded, no claim of notability Montchav ( talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus, (closed by non-admin) RMHED ( talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another School with unclear notability Montchav ( talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another school AFD. No claim of notability made in article Montchav ( talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge & Redirect per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED ( talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article covers the person based one event, against WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Anything useful from the article can be added to Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, but that article saw fit not to mention him, and at best all that is needed is a mention, which doesn't reach the level of requiring a merge. Prosfilaes ( talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Davewild ( talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this article, but I can't determine from the sources whether it is truly notable. Generates a considerable number of Google Scholar and Google Books results, and featured in an Oor Wullie cartoon, but I'm not convinced about notability. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
version of article at time of AFD-nomination: This appeared as a PROD-nomination, though it had previously been deleted via AfD. No reason was provided in the PROD, but the real reason why I'm bringing this here is that the prior AfD was clearly closed on the basis of vote-counting. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed without change to article. Non-notable school, no assertion of notability, no references. Article written in promotional style.
Kim Dent-Brown
(Talk) 12:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian ( talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns ( talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns reply
The result was Speedy close and keep. The nominator has been blocked for disruption and after reviewing all his edits it is clear that this AfD proposal is part of that disruption. Bduke ( talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of it's own article/waste of bandwidth Sab Cav ( talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 ( talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply
:Redirect to the LoE per
WP:EPISODE.
Silver Sonic Shadow (
talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Result was transwiki & redirect. Already done, so this is a procedural non-admin close. < eleland/ talk edits> 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete yeah, what they said. — Random832 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. I can't really see this becoming encyclopedic. Richard Ω6 12 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, fails to meet standards of notability per WP:MUSIC. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I declined a speedy delete request because of some assertion of notability. However I will leave it to the wider community to decide if this band is notable. Their label has an article but it is not a label in the usual corporate sense of the word. A former member is with a band but it is borderline as well. JodyB talk 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Vaguely promotional tone, but more importantly this is already covered in Ghostwriter and Essay mill. Lankiveil ( talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay of original research, neologism Dougie WII ( talk) 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
An album that didn't perform well. There are no sources supplied. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy closed. the wub "?!" 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article describes about Nevena Tsoneva, hence the title of the article is typo. There are much more description on the article Nevena Tsoneva, so it seems to be better to delete this rather than merge this to Nevena Tsoneva. -- Peccafly ( talk) 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Bduke ( talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Disputed speedy deletion (see Talk:XCritic for a discussion). This article was created by the subject. It has sources but fails to assert notability. Talk page discussion from author admits that the website is just starting out. Article reads like an advert and there's a clear CoI in it being authored by the subject. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
comment Added a third party review of the content "Jane's Guide" this should satisfy the notability issue "Jane has been quoted as an "expert in the field" in articles by the following publications: Wired.com, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Orange County Weekly, The Boston Globe, U.S. News and World Report, The SF Gate, AVN Online, MSNBC, WNYC (National Public Radio affiliate) and many others." notability of Jane's Guide as Definitive source in field. Gkleinman ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Ultimately I think I've put forth an extremely solid case for Keep and spent the time here as a newbie to learn how things work and what is needed. If you compare the first iteration of the page with what's there now you'll see a lot of work has been done to make it conform to WP standards. Gkleinman ( talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was USERFY. JIP | Talk 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not seem notable/important enough to have a wikipedia article. Delete. Peasantwarrior ( talk) 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Bduke ( talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a fund-raising organization of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{ Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep I feel that this deletion attempt is a bit hasty, this subject should be expanded on as it encompasses the entire Chabad movement in Texas. If anything, more needs to be written about this, more articles should be created as well. At present the article is underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion.
Culturalrevival (
talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Secret account 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a synagogue of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{ Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK ( talk) 10:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This list is an indiscriminate collection of websites which apparently have one thing in common: they run a particular software, the pertinence of which fact escapes me. The list is also subject to a lame edit war about whether a particular website should be included or not; see WP:ANI#List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine. Sandstein ( talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Looks like something that was
made up one day. May be eligible for speedy deletion since The author acknowledges that "There are no Sources that even mention Mäkmélíâ as a language."
[32] --
Shunpiker (
talk) 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. Davewild ( talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This defintion has been moved to wiktionary.
Tonytypoon ( talk) 08:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record label. Only ever released one single. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record label with zero incoming links and spam. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all.
Mickey McFinnigan redirected to " Peter's Two Dads" - character only appeared there, no real content in character article not in episode article.
Bertram (Family Guy) redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have added references there to the two episodes in which he appeared, no real content in character article not in those episode articles.
Thelma Griffin redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have merged in a small amount of descriptive content.
-- Stormie ( talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Three NN characters with no real-world significance and have only been in a few episodes and can easily covered at the List of characters from Family Guy. Scorpion 0422 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also NN characters:
The result was Keep. Keilana talk (recall) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is written in an almost completely in-universe style, and, so far as I can see, it does not warrant an article and should be integrated into Spells in Harry Potter. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, the style in which an article is written is not a valid reason to delete it. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
“ | However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. | ” |
The prose, tone and style (or lack of it) are mostly irrelevant in this case. Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn with no !votes placed, so no need to keep it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If the claims in this article are true, then this person is certainly notable, but I can't find any references. This may just be because records of Trinidad and Tobago's government from the turn of the century are difficult to find, but even so I would think that someone with as distinguished a career as the article claims Fitzpatrick had would leave some trace. Taking it to AfD just in case I'm missing something.
Lankiveil (
talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. The history remains and any content can be merged in by any editor through the normal processes. Chick Bowen 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the descriptionof a minor US political office. Per WP:BIO this is an appointed ad-hoc office that is not in the Constitution, is not elected or senate-confirmed. Most of google hits are for invites and by-lines. Simply not more notable than the President's butler or the Chief of Staff's chief of staff. This doesn't say a person holding this position can't be notable, just that on its own, the position is not notable. Mbisanz ( talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was snowball delete -- Maxim (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet message board, no independent secondary sources, and a constant vandal magnet (for some reason). Removed/vandalized PROD. IronGargoyle ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
A previous AfD ended in delete. The article was later recreated and, despite the caution from ArbCom and basic WP:COI policies, has almost solely been developed and maintained by the subject of the article. ( User:Rosencomet is reasonably believed to be Jeff Rosenbaum according to the findings of an Arbcom case.) When I recently began overhauling the article along with User:Kathryn NicDhàna, it looked like this. Looking hard at the references, Kathryn and I found them to be ridiculously padded. After revamping the article, it looked like this. Look at the talk page for some discussion between us and Rosencomet about the sources we took out. Many simply included his name in a list of "thank you"s in a book introduction, or a quote from him about the Starwood Festival (of which he is the primary producer and promoter). None of the references cited any of the article content, as they were about Starwood, not Rosenbaum. Few of the remaining sources in the article are WP:V or WP:RS. If you look at the Reference section, you'll see most of the sources are to the website of his group (rosencomet dot com). His published work consists of part of an article in a rather limited circulation zine Green Egg and a one page interview with him, again discussing Starwood, not any details about himself. The music is on tapes/CDs published by his group (self-published) and the spoken word entries listed are panel discussions that he apparently moderated (again, self-published) at these events. I looked for sources while revamping the article and the best are in it now. I've put a fair bit of work into this article, trying to improve it and its sources, but he still doesn't seem notable by Wikipedia standards. And I don't think there are enough good sources to support an article about him. Pigman ☿ 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
(Moved from talk page by Rosencomet ( talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was Keep. Deletion is not the answer to the problems. Bduke ( talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group founded by Falun Gong. A google search finds only 90,300 results, mostly from Falun Gong associated websites.-- PCPP ( talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a random collection of information floating off on its own and unsourced Cloveious ( talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Bduke ( talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Navel gazing. While many Wikipedians (especially the older ones) have heard of MeatballWiki, it has no notability in the outside world. Although the article has existed since 2001 (created by an editor who described it as a " shameless plug to fill in dangling link"), it has virtually no secondary sources. All the inlined citations link to wikis and other forms of content that fail WP:RS. There are only two mentions of MeatballWiki in mainstream media, both of which are listed in external links. They are as follows:
That's it. Two sentences in reliable sources for a site that has existed for over half a decade. We need to hold ourselves to the same guidelines we apply to garage bands. MeatballWiki fails our web notability guidelines: specifically, "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (No), "the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" (No), and "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (No).
Frankly, some of the arguments in the last AFD were nothing short of embarrassing. One user said, "This article has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and Meta often refers to Meatball". Another said that "it meets my "heard of this thing outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects a few times" gut feeling criterion". These should have been disregarded because they do not accord with Wikipedia deletion policy. If someone wants a Wikipedia: namespace or Meta article on meatball, that's fine — but this is not an encyclopedia article. *** Crotalus *** 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax, seems like something made up at school one day. Exactly 0 (zero) google and yahoo hits. Carados ( talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was a non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per author's request. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. I'm not listing this as a keep because of the WP:ILIKEIT type keep arguments given. So the best thing to do for now is let it go and see if it can be improved, or if it fares differently next time. CitiCat ♫ 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested redirect. Article is nothing more then an original research plot summary for a non-notable episode. Ridernyc ( talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Limetolime ( talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Pokecruft. No hope for exapansion; we don't need an article about every pokemon card. Not even worthy of merging. Reads like a fan site to boot TheBilly ( talk) 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a necessary page; duplicates the content of Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. A category is a much less likely vandal target, as this article has been hit often and has several questionable names. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Marked as a speedy, but another editor thinks it asserts notability. Their music appears available to some extent online, and at CD Baby, but I don't really think they have achieved encyclopedic notability yet, per WP:BAND. Article is unsourced, and I can't seem to find evidence of them being on a record label. No G-news hits, only 17 G-hits for '"The midnight flyers" band australia'. Just looked through history and contribs more thoroughly, and I think we're probably also looking at WP:AUTOBIO. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. youngamerican ( wtf?) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable person who does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Single Rabbi in a small town. Was CSDed under G7 but creator immediately recreated in its current state claiming it was "bad manners" to delete the article. Attempts to find notability about this person failed and despite creators claim that the person is notable, he hasn't provided any actual evidence. Collectonian ( talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org ! IZAK ( talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was garbage. DS ( talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This is likely a hoax, but even if it isn't, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Dawn bard ( talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Oxymoron 83 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable electronic music group. Aside from the group's MySpace page, a few Google searches turned up nothing relevant except for a few trivial mentions of upcoming gigs. I believe they do not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. As an aside, the article has a promotional tone and was created by User:Kenmifs, who may very well be Kenneth Mifsud, a member of the group. Lankiveil ( talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as notable. AfD isn't the place to request cleanup or expansion. – Pomte 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I was trying to help another user improve this article by offering suggestions. The article isn't very informative about the book itself, but it's a best-seller book. Many of the refs are blog, and the article seems a bit of a battle ground with little info on the book itself. Busy Stubber ( talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (with creation of redirect to LoE) CitiCat ♫ 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Single, unnotable episode of Sex and the City that fails
WP:EPISODE and
WP:FICTION. Nothing but a short plot summary and cast list. Merge unneeded as plot summary is already covered in
List of Sex and the City episodes. Failed Prod.
Collectonian (
talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. — Scien tizzle 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Fringe candidate with a peak performance of 393 votes in a Presidential Election. There are a few references, but they are all mainly trivial. Lankiveil ( talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7 (biographical article with no notability asserted) by User:Jerry , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
no assertion of notability per WP:N and no references per WP:V. Mh29255 ( talk) 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No evidence that the subject meets WP:N guidelines, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an event of 100 people or under. Article largely written and maintained by the producer/promoter of the event ( User:Rosencomet) who has also added links to his autobio, Jeff Rosenbaum and the pages of people whose tapes/CDs he sells. Checked sources and almost all available ones were grossly padded. The two remaining third-party sources were unavailable to check as I could find no evidence of their existence. There are zero G-news hits. There are nn and COI issues all over the place with this one. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local supermarket. Covered by local papers after it sold its property to a larger chain. Mikeblas ( talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Scien tizzle 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
article fails to assert notability per WP:N, fails to provide outside sources per WP:V and reads like WP:SPAM. Mh29255 ( talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
There is absolutely nothing notable about "Jewish Aggies," which is simply a label for a religious group of TAMU labels (same as Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, etc etc etc). The article claims they are associated with the Chabad of Brazos Valley, however all Aggies who are Jewish are "Jewish Aggies," it is not a trademarked term. Article is tagged as being under construction, but I see no good place this article could go. It is, at best, a dictionary term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Collectonian ( talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikidemo ( talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - early closure as it's clear where this will end - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Only contains templates. Endarrt ( talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Scien tizzle 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Ambassadors are not considered notable by default, and this ambassador receives only two Google hits. I would consider the subject non-notable. SaveThePoint ( talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Though work was done on the article, the sources added were not sufficiently independent (e.g., a gallery that has displayed his work), and the copyright violation issue was never addressed, with a number of sentences remaining in the article still taken from Pearce's website. No prejudice against a brand new version, but it would have to be based on genuinely independent and reliable sources not to be considered a recreation. Chick Bowen 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:N, no third-party references per WP:V, apparent WP:SPAM and WP:COI with no attempts made to correct problems. Mh29255 ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. If it comes back, salt it, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod.
Well, just read it for yourself. Orginal essay, nonsense. Carados ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The current consensus is that the oldest resident ever of each US state is notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 ( talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete/redirect. Note: an anon IP removed the AfD notice on 30 December 2007, but the consensus here is clear enough that no relist appears necessary. — Scien tizzle 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an essay of some sort. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete; fails WP:BAND (though Jamie Ballayntyne may marginally meet it). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:COI issues and questionable notability, not to mention bound to fail WP:BAND. Anna Loggue ( talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Helped to found a local martial arts school (no evidence that it's notable), won a handful of competitions (none of which are presented as notable), plays in a non-notable band... No evidence that this individual is in any way notable. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Oxymoron 83 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite some notable members, fails WP:BAND simple as that. Anna Loggue ( talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Bearian ( talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject is non-notable. Step-son of Mack Brown, interfered with a play in the 2007 Holiday Bowl. That's it. Was prod'ed but template was removed.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The entirety of all the coverage of Mr. Jessee has been the subject of is limited to his actions in the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus his actions should be covered there. A separate article about him would, considering all the sources that have covered him so far, put far too much undue weight on his mistake in the Holiday Bowl and would be unfair the remainder of whatever else he's done in his life. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC) replyWikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.
The result was Speedy Keep: obvious case of misinterpretation of WP:NOTE and/or a case of WP:POINT. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 06:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete This is an article about an unimportant subject. The Talking Mac ( talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Pokemon Trading Card Game. Keilana talk (recall) 00:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is redundant with the article on the Pokemon Trading Card Game and this article demonstrates no notability of its own through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Complete lack of reliable sources, especially of the caliber that are generally required for a biography of a living person. The vast majority of cites are to Usenet posts, or to the subject's own website. A few others are to blogs and self-published websites, none of which are generally considered reliable sources. There is also original research, like the statement that Conrad claims to have appeared on Larry King Live followed by a Google search of CNN.com which shows no hits. There is no evidence that this person is at all notable in the real world, as opposed to the self-contained world of Usenet. In the past, we've deleted articles like Willy on Wheels, Slashdot subculture, and Gay Nigger Association of America for being too self-referential and lacking any reliable sources. This article should be removed for the same reason. *** Crotalus *** 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
As for the WWW: Of the 88 actual web pages that Google Web turns up, some are entries in directories of either "wacky websites" or "criticism of Darwinism websites", the overwhelming majority are pseudonymous discussion fora postings, exactly four are the very (and only) four independent sources cited in this article, none of which actually document M. Conrad xyrself (only xyr arguments), and the remainder … turn out to have been written by M. Conrad xyrself.
The hypothesis is only documented in its rebuttal, with no evidence that it qualifies as anything other than original research that the rest of the world does not acknowledge, and the person is not reliably documented at all. Uncle G ( talk) 03:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Sufficient keep consensus after 5 days. Non-administrator close. Rt . 20:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not established. DimaG ( talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Seems to be a memorial for writer's mother (see edit revisions). As much as I hate being a jerk, WP:NOT a memorial. Carados ( talk) 23:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Pigman ☿ 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Musician with questionable notability. Dougie WII ( talk) 23:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability. Virtually impossible to do google search, and the article contains absolutely zero references. No evidence that his band The Clerics is notable. No evidence that this is anything more than a perpetual stub of non-notability. Keeper | 76 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete both as hoaxes. BLACKKITE 01:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. At end of AfD, the article remains unsourced and without WP:V support. Pigman ☿ 05:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested CSD, tagged for notability concerns. Kei lana (recall) 22:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Logical NOR; the history remains if anyone wants to merge. Keilana talk (recall) 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about an anachronistic turn-of-the-century term for the NOR logical operator (and sometimes NAND as well). Could not find any evidence that the term is still in significant use. Original article consisted mostly of original research by a fan of the term's inventor. Tried to rewrite the article, but could not locate sufficient secondary sources to do the topic justice. The last paragraph is still original research, but I haven't removed it since the article doesn't make much sense without it. I don't think the subject can ever spawn a decent article, nor do I believe that it passes the notabilty requirements. I would suggest changing the article into a redirect to Logical NOR as this is what the term most often refers to. (Also, the article's original author has requested that the article be deleted, although that editor has been banned, so I wouldn't put much weight on that consideration.) Kaldari ( talk) 22:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, with a strong suggestion for expansion. Keilana talk (recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable article per WP:V about a possible upcoming videogame. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Mh29255 ( talk) 22:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Llanelli#Primary and secondary based on the informed reasoning of Dahliarose and Sam Blacketer. – Pomte 05:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable school per WP:N. Mh29255 ( talk) 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a Hoax. BLACKKITE 01:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Strongly suspect this is a hoax -- no record found at Billboard of any such album or group Accounting4Taste: talk 22:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep - WP:SNOW and invalid nomination rationale. Paul Cyr ( talk) 22:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
the article is going to continue more mass killings in the Islamic area. Eldorado91 ( talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Canadian Bobby ( talk) 21:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per overriding WP:V concerns. No reliable, third-party sources about this ... venture ... have been cited in either the article or the AfD; the numerous self-published pamphlets and the like are not reliable sources. Also, most of the article's content reads like patent nonsense. This may be the artistic point of whoever is behind this, but not of Wikipedia. Sandstein ( talk) 14:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonnotable organization with no verifiable third-party references. This was previously nominated for deletion, but the questionable result was a weak keep, leaning toward merge. However, the same problems still linger. There is simply no verifiable information to say this group even exists, and if it does, that it is of any relevance or importance. Once again, it should be deleted or merged with Stewart Home.- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
* Delete Without any context, it's borderline
WP:NONSENSE. I'm not even sure what context would make it make sense.
WP:NOT at any rate.
Ψν
Psi
nu 23:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
These are all verifiable third party sources. User:RepublicanJacobite may be unacquainted with tghis material, but his speculation that Home was behind them all should be treated like the idea that Bacon wrote the works of Shakespeare. It is unfortuante that User:RepublicanJacobite is so adrift on this point, and tries to divert us with his idle speculation fuelled by a log holiday and his strange obsession with Stewart Home (unleess of course he is Stewart Home Sock puppet himself! Harrypotter ( talk) 13:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 05:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable contestant ( WP:N) in a Whales beauty pageant that did not ultimately win. Mh29255 ( talk) 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - The page is a fork of the article on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Religious violence in India. There is no new info presented. It also is an indiscriminate collection of unrelated incidents and should be deleted as such. Baka man 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that notability has not been established by enough significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild ( talk) 18:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
I'm not convinced by the sources provided that this website is notable enough for inclusion. A large portion of the "ScoreHero in the Media" section describes certain users of the site, and not the site itself. It's also a rather serious issue that the name of a 9 year old is included in this article, which opens up a couple of WP:BLP issues, although those can be fixed. Sean William @ 21:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
It does not fall under one category anymore, it fits in more than one, so you can't just put it in one. It would be more logical in my opinion to put this as related articles for the Guitar Hero games and Rock Band, and any other game this site will include in the future. Plerrius ( talk) 00:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Anyway, I vote keep. Not like I have to state that, though. I've already said what I think about the issues addressed. -- Machchunk | make some noise at me 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOTFILM Mayalld ( talk) 08:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Keep it's notable in the context of the Philippines. -- Chris S. ( talk) 08:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Project Genesis. Davewild ( talk) 18:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is just plot repetition taken from the Star Trek movie articles and has no notability or referencing of its own. As such, its just plot repetition and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Keilana talk (recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I love Star Trek, but this article should be at a Star Trek wiki and not on Wikipedia, as it lacks notability and referencing, and as such just repeats, in an in-universe way, the plot of various Star Trek episodes and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, it seems to me that this AFD was inappropriate, given the short time between DRV and AFD. Keilana talk (recall) 01:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an article about a trade organisation, which is sourced from its journals, its press releases, its publications and not much else. The organisation has a journal, holds meetings, mas members, a chairman and officers. In which, of course, it is indistinguishable form any other organisation. It has 3,000 members. That is a very small association. The National Association of Women's Clubs in the UK has more than twice that, I know because my mum is an officer. I suspect WP:COI on the part of the three-times-creator and sole editor. Tone of the article is inappropriately promotional. Deletion review of my speedy was requested by user:Davolson who has fewer than 20 mainspace editos over a period of more than a year; the webmaster of PDMA is... Dave Olson. Guy ( Help!) 20:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn on the basis that reliable sources have been presented. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (GMT)
Just a side road of California State Route 39. There is no evidence to establish/support its notability. 哦, 是吗?( O-person) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (GMT)
The result was Keep. Keilana talk (recall) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is an in-universe plot repetition from the Chronicles of Narnia book articles, and has no notability or referencing outside of them. As such, this is just duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that he does meet the relevant notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has been tagged with notability issues for some time and fails to assert notability per WP:N. Tag to speedily delete was removed. Mh29255 ( talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete-- Tone 15:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of a previous prod [9], the article has drifted since then into incomprehensible nonsense. The only reason I'm not prodding again is its previous prod. Fails WP:NN and WP:PN "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". AlasdairGreen27 ( talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The principal argument for deletion is that this concept, either as "Anti-Pakistani sentiment" or as "Pakistanphobia", is not the subject of sufficient reliable sources. A random sampling of the article's references confirms this. The "keep" opinions do not address this WP:NEO/ WP:SYNTH issue. Sandstein ( talk) 09:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is getting flooded with 'anti-foo-ism' or 'foo-phobia' articles. Generally, these are concepts constructed within wikipedia, disparate incidents and vague understandings of chauvinistic feelings are grouped together for political purpose. Just cause there is a antisemitism article doesn't mean that every ethnic/religious/national group should have its own 'anti-' article. There absolutely no reation between chauvinism in India and discrimination against Pakistani migrants in the US. Soman ( talk) 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that he fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable writer who fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend ( talk) 20:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete both. Davewild ( talk) 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Album with no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article. Band's article has been repeated deleted as non-notable and is now salted. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The places for publishing novel theories in physics, and peer reviewing them, are physics journals. Please use them. This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. Please go elsewhere to publish your novel theories to the world. This is not the place. Uncle G ( talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think anyone in this very onesided discussion actually comprehends the theory. It is verifiable by the Haffle and Keating experiment results. Discoveries are documented in Wikipedia. If
TBR is valid, it is a discovery. IMO, there is no one yet in this
conversation qualified to prove or disprove it's validity or significance. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Steve D. Gage (
talk •
contribs) 20:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Real world significance? One point of TBR is that there is no linear motion in the Universe [motion in a straight line]. It literally cannot be accomplished. Even in drawing a line with a ruler, the earth has turned, and revolved around the sun. You have drawn an arc. This and other significant points in the theory lead to the logic of the true nature of motion, force, time dilation, etc. If it is correct showing Special Relativity to be less than fully descriptive or correct, we should keep the faulty theory link here and delete the correct one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve D. Gage ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
At the top of this page it says "help wikipedia change the world." New information does just that. Steve D. Gage ( talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
No, if you look at it more closely, they're implying that money does that, a far more accurate assertion. Also, since you're a Man of Science, by now you should have realized that you're pushing against the limits of the Sixth Law of Wikidynamics: "The strength of the protest of the originator against an AfD is inversely proportional to the merit of the item." Consider yourself advised. Ψν Psi nu 11:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Garou: Mark of the Wolves. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Short article covering a non-notable fictional character with no sources. Delete, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Airhawk. Pagra shtak 18:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 19:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable, no sources and no google hits. Seems to fail WP:BAND. Harland1 ( t/ c) 18:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
listen wile i understand your justifiable cause to keep wiki free from self promotion it would have been easy for me to log on under an assumed name and post as a fan. i did not my e-mail address and name are open to see and would be happy to post them. we were an influential band at one point the biggest unsigned metal band touring and recording demos. i think our entry is fully justifiable. hopefullly it was correctly spelt and not one long advert. please advise how we could get a listing then, maybe if we cheat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony marshall ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
and i totaly understand this however in total we probably sold 4K+ and toured extensivly. by your standards radiohead would now be in danger because they are not signed to a major lable but there own! delete it if it makes you feel better but i thorgh the whole point of this was to have fun and enlighten people maybe its just so a select band of people can act as god? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Antony marshall (
talk •
contribs) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
Delete Your method of arguing grows increasingly strange, especially when you begin comparing this band to Radiohead, which has sufficient documentation establishing their notability. As of yet this article has no sources whatsoever, and if you have any that support this bands claim to notability, then I might consider changing my vote. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
i was not asking for radioheads entry to be deleted just said that if major label status was needed then theres a point in question right there. i understand the rules please feel free to deleate as it is the crime of the century to have someone most people have never heard of on wiki. by the way i run a pub probably one of the most sucsessful out there we have won or been runner up in 9 major awards in 2 years and shortlisted in 2 others next year (including the proud of pubs pub of the year award in the publican awards) could i enter this pub in wiki?? oh no because most people have not heard of it! please deleate this as it will make you all feel great and who am i to stop this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 ( talk) 10:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
jesus read the post i am NOT comparing us to radiohead jesus i hate there music anyway! we were far better! only joking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 ( talk) 17:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
yep no prob. i know in the great scheem of things we were nothing but big up the little guy. oh and our guitar player has collated all our demos for our planned myspace page but if it does not fit then sorry im very new to wiki.
thanks we are not after a contract as we now are all married kids ect just recording our little band for postrerity. by the way we were in numours magazine in the late 80's early 90's still we tried ah haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.196.51 ( talk) 11:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article fails verifiability, since the only reference given is a blog posting. Accordingly, the absence of coverage fails to establish the notability of this game. Wikipedia is not for things made up in the youth hostel or before leaving university for summer break. Finally, the culture section borders somewhere between original research and POV. — C.Fred ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Promotional EP with no claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that this list does not fail any policies and should be kept. Davewild ( talk) 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This seems to violate: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. Every location in a notable book series, doesn't automatically make every location notable. The important locations have articles already, and are linked from the template as well. Also I want to point out: this had a prod on it, but was removed for no reason. RobJ1981 ( talk) 17:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. J Milburn's argument is pursuasive. If Mr. Boyle becomes a subject of coverage (rather than a passing mention) by reliable sources in the future, the article can be recreated.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not convinced that simply being a candidate for govenor is enough assertion of notability. Press attention appears to have been minimal. J Milburn ( talk) 17:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
While Mr. Boyle's media impact may not very large, he has had a significant impact on the people and politics of New Hampshire. A great deal of Mr. Boyle's progressive efforts have been stunted by Concord, New Hampshire officials. This entry is an attempt to document his achievements precisely because the media attention he has received has been unreservedly underwhelming. With time, this content of this page will rival the deeds of David Carleton Boyle. People need to hear of his story and life because the noblest spirit embiggens the smallest man
The Concord Monitor and Fox News don't count as reliable sources? Boyle is a homeless person running for President. His platform is very strange, though there is not yet any material about it online. If it emerges, I'll add it to the article. In the meantime, why the rush to get rid of facts about him? Why does notability rest on the whims of mainstream media? 71.194.38.132 ( talk) 20:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. --
AndrewHowse (
talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
There's no suggestion above that Wikipedia doesn't need reliable sources. The suggestion is that The Concord Monitor and Fox News are reliable sources. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
71.194.38.132 (
talk) 07:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was nomination withdrawn- I'm an idiot, and didn't research this properly. I will redirect the article to the more substantial article on the same person. J Milburn ( talk) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a news service. This person has no notability outside of certain court cases, and not much notability within them. We cannot have a full biography about this person, and the article could potentially have coatrack and BLP problems. J Milburn ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as copyright violation. delldot talk 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as improved.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable band Mhking ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
-- Goferwiki ( talk) 04:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Prod and prod removed. Myself and another editor tried to help the author of this article in bringing it up to standards, 2 weeks later he has done nothing to improve it or provide us with info so we can improve it (see his talk page. The claim to notability in this article is that this person was the defendant in a landmark case, but that's clearly not true (it was a trial case), and the outcome isn't really that shocking: He was accused of car theft, but never intended to steal the car, so he was acquitted on that charge. Not uncommon (that's why we have the crime of joyriding). Summary: Neither the person nor the case are notable, despite the fluff piece used as a source. UsaSatsui ( talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable company. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete I searched for a mention of Sunplus Data Group in a reliable secondary sources and was unable to find anything. Lazulilasher ( talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Redirect. SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as A7 (non notable web content) by me. J Milburn ( talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as A7 (non notable group} by me. J Milburn ( talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy G1 by Nlu. Tevildo ( talk) 16:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 12:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Orphaned and obsolete with New York Yankees seasons already existing. Ksy92003 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. -- Stormie ( talk) 08:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable cellular phone. Too few substantial third-party references exist to write a meaningful article about this product. Indeed, after removing un-encyclopedic catalog information (an unreferenced "features" list), there's really nothing left. Wikipedia is not a Sony Ericsson catalog. Wikipedia is not a cell-phone catalog. Mikeblas ( talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy G7 by Od_Mishehu. Tevildo ( talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Reads like advertising of a church. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but deletion template removed by user. It does not meet notability criteria. NAH ID 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced article about a single, seemingly unnotable ride at a theme park. Mostly just a detailed description of the ride with quite a bit of stuff that reads like original research. Tagged as unreferenced since March and still unaddressed, seeming to indicate there are none available. Collectonian ( talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both after transwiki. Sandstein ( talk) 09:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornix talk 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all to Kultur Shock. While I have closed Kultur Shock's own AfD as keep, I do not believe that these articles stand alone, as none of them contain any content other than a tracklist and a non-free cover image. No prejudice against converting them back into stand-alone articles in the unlikely event that some reliably sourced content can be added. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn apparently self-released album from band that is either nn or just barely so (to be determined below), and three more also:
The result was keep - while it is hard to determine the exact notability of the band due to so much of the coverage referenced being in non-English-language publications, there is sufficient evidence that I have to say "when in doubt, don't delete". -- Stormie ( talk) 09:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:BAND. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and the article will be moved as well. -- JForget 00:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article has no prior versions that are free of POV pushing. It was created by a single edit account, and it has become a coat rack. I believe that there is insufficient NPOV content to support a separate article. Any useful content can be merged into Slavery or one of it's sub-articles. If this discussion results in keeping the article, then it must be moved to an NPOV title such as Judaism and slavery. We already have Islam and Slavery, and Christianity and slavery so we should follow that convention. Jehochman Talk 15:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) (Amended 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No verified notability, no sources. Fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. JodyB talk 15:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as nonsense. Joyous! | Talk 15:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I declined the speedy because it claims to be a notable, important person. I strongly suspect this to be a hoax but that is not a CSD justification. The sourcing is poor and does not verify notability. This, in my judgment, fails the following: WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. JodyB talk 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
As a person whose entire notability is for serving on the Baltimore City Council, she fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria for Politicians having never served at the international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office nor recieved significant coverage other than for the routine duties / election of a city councilperson. Toddst1 ( talk) 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily redirected as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikee Lee. Uncle G ( talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not only is the page ambiguous, the said person (Mikee Lee) is not notable beyond being a housemate for Pinoy Big Brother: Teen Edition. Also, it uses only one's given name as the article title, not the appropriate name for it. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete - it had at least 2 days to expand but failed to do so. -- JForget 00:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I have simply started a page. It will be completed soon, and will be a complete encyclopedia of Smasher Films history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge Actually, maybe merge this with Universal Studios. We are a similar company, who both put out good films, so I would be relatively happy for the merge to happen, even if we are a better company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms ( talk • contribs) 14:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete - Google search reveals only one 49 second "film" on YouTube, an alleged trailer for a movie that doesn't exist. No mention at all of this "established" film company on imdb.com.- Hal Raglan ( talk) 15:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Merge - the film will be completed shortly, and we don't have an imdb page yet. We currently have around 20 films which are released on DVD (Debt and Dead, Live Another Day...I hope), so we are quite established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasherfilms ( talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Marasmusine ( talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Article is about a community-hosted server running tabletop games. The community and server are not notable. SharkD ( talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete: per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 11:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirected to the Holy Rosary Academy dabpage. This was created at the same time by the same author of Holy Rosary Academy (Alaska). I've moved the infobox there, and otherwise the content is the same. Edit history is intact. – Pomte 13:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete this because it is an exact copy of the already existing Holy Rosary Academy article! -- Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that it notable. Strongly suggest adding some of the sources identified below to the article. Davewild ( talk) 19:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Seemingly non-notable book, tagged thus since March. May fail WP:BK, but it is a close call for me. It's been mentioned in reviews in the news, by quite a few different newspapers, but not much else of an impact. Montchav ( talk) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP. JIP | Talk 18:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game guide. No reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of D&D publications. Gavin Collins ( talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax. Already prodded a couple of times. Montchav ( talk) 13:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus, (closed by non-admin). RMHED ( talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another school previously prodded, no claim of notability Montchav ( talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus, (closed by non-admin) RMHED ( talk) 19:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another School with unclear notability Montchav ( talk) 13:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Another school AFD. No claim of notability made in article Montchav ( talk) 13:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge & Redirect per consensus. (closed by non-admin) RMHED ( talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The article covers the person based one event, against WP:BLP and WP:BIO. Anything useful from the article can be added to Eastern Air Lines Flight 401, but that article saw fit not to mention him, and at best all that is needed is a mention, which doesn't reach the level of requiring a merge. Prosfilaes ( talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Davewild ( talk) 20:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this article, but I can't determine from the sources whether it is truly notable. Generates a considerable number of Google Scholar and Google Books results, and featured in an Oor Wullie cartoon, but I'm not convinced about notability. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
version of article at time of AFD-nomination: This appeared as a PROD-nomination, though it had previously been deleted via AfD. No reason was provided in the PROD, but the real reason why I'm bringing this here is that the prior AfD was clearly closed on the basis of vote-counting. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed without change to article. Non-notable school, no assertion of notability, no references. Article written in promotional style.
Kim Dent-Brown
(Talk) 12:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus, although users are certainly free to discuss merge. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable video game character with no real-world significance. Article is almost entirely game plot regurgitation, Original research "supported" by a glut of game quotes. Tagged as such and suggested merge to List of Crash Bandicoot characters. Tagging was labeled vandalism. On closer inspect, the list of character covers this one adequately enough, so merge is probably not needed anyway. Collectonian ( talk) 19:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I think it should be added in the series game characters article, not have a article of its own. Ihsbislns ( talk) 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Ihsbislns reply
The result was Speedy close and keep. The nominator has been blocked for disruption and after reviewing all his edits it is clear that this AfD proposal is part of that disruption. Bduke ( talk) 22:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Not worthy of it's own article/waste of bandwidth Sab Cav ( talk) 14:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete JERRY talk contribs 03:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 ( talk) 21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply
:Redirect to the LoE per
WP:EPISODE.
Silver Sonic Shadow (
talk) 04:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Result was transwiki & redirect. Already done, so this is a procedural non-admin close. < eleland/ talk edits> 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete yeah, what they said. — Random832 14:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. I can't really see this becoming encyclopedic. Richard Ω6 12 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, fails to meet standards of notability per WP:MUSIC. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I declined a speedy delete request because of some assertion of notability. However I will leave it to the wider community to decide if this band is notable. Their label has an article but it is not a label in the usual corporate sense of the word. A former member is with a band but it is borderline as well. JodyB talk 13:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Vaguely promotional tone, but more importantly this is already covered in Ghostwriter and Essay mill. Lankiveil ( talk) 13:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Davewild ( talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay of original research, neologism Dougie WII ( talk) 13:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
An album that didn't perform well. There are no sources supplied. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy closed. the wub "?!" 23:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
This article describes about Nevena Tsoneva, hence the title of the article is typo. There are much more description on the article Nevena Tsoneva, so it seems to be better to delete this rather than merge this to Nevena Tsoneva. -- Peccafly ( talk) 12:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Bduke ( talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Disputed speedy deletion (see Talk:XCritic for a discussion). This article was created by the subject. It has sources but fails to assert notability. Talk page discussion from author admits that the website is just starting out. Article reads like an advert and there's a clear CoI in it being authored by the subject. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 12:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
comment Added a third party review of the content "Jane's Guide" this should satisfy the notability issue "Jane has been quoted as an "expert in the field" in articles by the following publications: Wired.com, The New York Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Orange County Weekly, The Boston Globe, U.S. News and World Report, The SF Gate, AVN Online, MSNBC, WNYC (National Public Radio affiliate) and many others." notability of Jane's Guide as Definitive source in field. Gkleinman ( talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Ultimately I think I've put forth an extremely solid case for Keep and spent the time here as a newbie to learn how things work and what is needed. If you compare the first iteration of the page with what's there now you'll see a lot of work has been done to make it conform to WP standards. Gkleinman ( talk) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was USERFY. JIP | Talk 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not seem notable/important enough to have a wikipedia article. Delete. Peasantwarrior ( talk) 11:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Bduke ( talk) 11:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chabad of Brazos Valley, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a fund-raising organization of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{ Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
*Keep I feel that this deletion attempt is a bit hasty, this subject should be expanded on as it encompasses the entire Chabad movement in Texas. If anything, more needs to be written about this, more articles should be created as well. At present the article is underdeveloped, but that is no reason for deletion.
Culturalrevival (
talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Secret account 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The creator of this article has recently created articles that are variations of one Chabad type. So far at least three others have been nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yossi Lazaroff; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. This article is about a synagogue of the Chabad Hasidic movement of which there are thousands similar ones in the world. Wikipedia is not Chabad.org meaning that it is not here to further the publicity and propagandistic aims of the movement. Chabad has its own plentiful websites and Wikipedia should resist a stealth invasion in this manner, (see the bloated {{ Chabad sidebar}} template that exhibits "an ambition that does oe'r leap itself" -- to quote Shakespeare in Macbeth.) This article is part of a trend that violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox; Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site; and just plain Wikipedia is not your web host of which, and for which, Chabad has plenty of. IZAK ( talk) 10:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 18:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory of websites. This list is an indiscriminate collection of websites which apparently have one thing in common: they run a particular software, the pertinence of which fact escapes me. The list is also subject to a lame edit war about whether a particular website should be included or not; see WP:ANI#List of sites running the LiveJournal engine, Talk:List of sites running the LiveJournal engine. Sandstein ( talk) 10:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Looks like something that was
made up one day. May be eligible for speedy deletion since The author acknowledges that "There are no Sources that even mention Mäkmélíâ as a language."
[32] --
Shunpiker (
talk) 10:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. Davewild ( talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This defintion has been moved to wiktionary.
Tonytypoon ( talk) 08:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 07:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record label. Only ever released one single. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Stormie ( talk) 09:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable record label with zero incoming links and spam. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect all.
Mickey McFinnigan redirected to " Peter's Two Dads" - character only appeared there, no real content in character article not in episode article.
Bertram (Family Guy) redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have added references there to the two episodes in which he appeared, no real content in character article not in those episode articles.
Thelma Griffin redirected to List of characters from Family Guy - I have merged in a small amount of descriptive content.
-- Stormie ( talk) 09:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Three NN characters with no real-world significance and have only been in a few episodes and can easily covered at the List of characters from Family Guy. Scorpion 0422 07:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also NN characters:
The result was Keep. Keilana talk (recall) 22:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is written in an almost completely in-universe style, and, so far as I can see, it does not warrant an article and should be integrated into Spells in Harry Potter. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 06:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Also, the style in which an article is written is not a valid reason to delete it. Colonel Warden ( talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
“ | However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. | ” |
The prose, tone and style (or lack of it) are mostly irrelevant in this case. Nousernamesleft talk and matrix? 05:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn with no !votes placed, so no need to keep it open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 12:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If the claims in this article are true, then this person is certainly notable, but I can't find any references. This may just be because records of Trinidad and Tobago's government from the turn of the century are difficult to find, but even so I would think that someone with as distinguished a career as the article claims Fitzpatrick had would leave some trace. Taking it to AfD just in case I'm missing something.
Lankiveil (
talk) 06:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. The history remains and any content can be merged in by any editor through the normal processes. Chick Bowen 06:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the descriptionof a minor US political office. Per WP:BIO this is an appointed ad-hoc office that is not in the Constitution, is not elected or senate-confirmed. Most of google hits are for invites and by-lines. Simply not more notable than the President's butler or the Chief of Staff's chief of staff. This doesn't say a person holding this position can't be notable, just that on its own, the position is not notable. Mbisanz ( talk) 06:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was snowball delete -- Maxim (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable internet message board, no independent secondary sources, and a constant vandal magnet (for some reason). Removed/vandalized PROD. IronGargoyle ( talk) 06:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted ~ Riana ⁂ 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
A previous AfD ended in delete. The article was later recreated and, despite the caution from ArbCom and basic WP:COI policies, has almost solely been developed and maintained by the subject of the article. ( User:Rosencomet is reasonably believed to be Jeff Rosenbaum according to the findings of an Arbcom case.) When I recently began overhauling the article along with User:Kathryn NicDhàna, it looked like this. Looking hard at the references, Kathryn and I found them to be ridiculously padded. After revamping the article, it looked like this. Look at the talk page for some discussion between us and Rosencomet about the sources we took out. Many simply included his name in a list of "thank you"s in a book introduction, or a quote from him about the Starwood Festival (of which he is the primary producer and promoter). None of the references cited any of the article content, as they were about Starwood, not Rosenbaum. Few of the remaining sources in the article are WP:V or WP:RS. If you look at the Reference section, you'll see most of the sources are to the website of his group (rosencomet dot com). His published work consists of part of an article in a rather limited circulation zine Green Egg and a one page interview with him, again discussing Starwood, not any details about himself. The music is on tapes/CDs published by his group (self-published) and the spoken word entries listed are panel discussions that he apparently moderated (again, self-published) at these events. I looked for sources while revamping the article and the best are in it now. I've put a fair bit of work into this article, trying to improve it and its sources, but he still doesn't seem notable by Wikipedia standards. And I don't think there are enough good sources to support an article about him. Pigman ☿ 06:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
(Moved from talk page by Rosencomet ( talk) 18:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was Keep. Deletion is not the answer to the problems. Bduke ( talk) 11:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable group founded by Falun Gong. A google search finds only 90,300 results, mostly from Falun Gong associated websites.-- PCPP ( talk) 06:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 03:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a random collection of information floating off on its own and unsourced Cloveious ( talk) 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Bduke ( talk) 08:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Navel gazing. While many Wikipedians (especially the older ones) have heard of MeatballWiki, it has no notability in the outside world. Although the article has existed since 2001 (created by an editor who described it as a " shameless plug to fill in dangling link"), it has virtually no secondary sources. All the inlined citations link to wikis and other forms of content that fail WP:RS. There are only two mentions of MeatballWiki in mainstream media, both of which are listed in external links. They are as follows:
That's it. Two sentences in reliable sources for a site that has existed for over half a decade. We need to hold ourselves to the same guidelines we apply to garage bands. MeatballWiki fails our web notability guidelines: specifically, "content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (No), "the website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" (No), and "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" (No).
Frankly, some of the arguments in the last AFD were nothing short of embarrassing. One user said, "This article has been on Wikipedia for over 4 years, and Meta often refers to Meatball". Another said that "it meets my "heard of this thing outside of Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects a few times" gut feeling criterion". These should have been disregarded because they do not accord with Wikipedia deletion policy. If someone wants a Wikipedia: namespace or Meta article on meatball, that's fine — but this is not an encyclopedia article. *** Crotalus *** 06:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Obvious hoax, seems like something made up at school one day. Exactly 0 (zero) google and yahoo hits. Carados ( talk) 05:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was a non-admin keep per consensus. SorryGuy Talk 08:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per author's request. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Simple little elementary school, giving no reasons why it's notable other than apparently the rejected idea that elementary schools would be notable. Nyttend ( talk) 05:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. I'm not listing this as a keep because of the WP:ILIKEIT type keep arguments given. So the best thing to do for now is let it go and see if it can be improved, or if it fares differently next time. CitiCat ♫ 04:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested redirect. Article is nothing more then an original research plot summary for a non-notable episode. Ridernyc ( talk) 05:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Limetolime ( talk) 19:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Pokecruft. No hope for exapansion; we don't need an article about every pokemon card. Not even worthy of merging. Reads like a fan site to boot TheBilly ( talk) 05:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Not a necessary page; duplicates the content of Category:Phillips Exeter Academy alumni. A category is a much less likely vandal target, as this article has been hit often and has several questionable names. ( ESkog)( Talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Marked as a speedy, but another editor thinks it asserts notability. Their music appears available to some extent online, and at CD Baby, but I don't really think they have achieved encyclopedic notability yet, per WP:BAND. Article is unsourced, and I can't seem to find evidence of them being on a record label. No G-news hits, only 17 G-hits for '"The midnight flyers" band australia'. Just looked through history and contribs more thoroughly, and I think we're probably also looking at WP:AUTOBIO. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 03:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate list of songs whose only common bond is that they mention Oklahoma or have it in the title somewhere. None of these songs have any other common bond, so this list violates WP:NOT#DIR, not to mention the utter lack of sourcing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 04:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. youngamerican ( wtf?) 18:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable person who does not meet the WP:BIO requirements. Single Rabbi in a small town. Was CSDed under G7 but creator immediately recreated in its current state claiming it was "bad manners" to delete the article. Attempts to find notability about this person failed and despite creators claim that the person is notable, he hasn't provided any actual evidence. Collectonian ( talk) 04:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
deletion/Texas Friends of Chabad Lubavitch]] and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish Aggies that are essentially WP:VANITY pages. Wikipedia is NOT Chabad.org ! IZAK ( talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was garbage. DS ( talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This is likely a hoax, but even if it isn't, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Dawn bard ( talk) 03:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Oxymoron 83 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable electronic music group. Aside from the group's MySpace page, a few Google searches turned up nothing relevant except for a few trivial mentions of upcoming gigs. I believe they do not meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. As an aside, the article has a promotional tone and was created by User:Kenmifs, who may very well be Kenneth Mifsud, a member of the group. Lankiveil ( talk) 03:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as notable. AfD isn't the place to request cleanup or expansion. – Pomte 06:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
I was trying to help another user improve this article by offering suggestions. The article isn't very informative about the book itself, but it's a best-seller book. Many of the refs are blog, and the article seems a bit of a battle ground with little info on the book itself. Busy Stubber ( talk) 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. (with creation of redirect to LoE) CitiCat ♫ 04:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Single, unnotable episode of Sex and the City that fails
WP:EPISODE and
WP:FICTION. Nothing but a short plot summary and cast list. Merge unneeded as plot summary is already covered in
List of Sex and the City episodes. Failed Prod.
Collectonian (
talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep. — Scien tizzle 18:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Fringe candidate with a peak performance of 393 votes in a Presidential Election. There are a few references, but they are all mainly trivial. Lankiveil ( talk) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7 (biographical article with no notability asserted) by User:Jerry , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
no assertion of notability per WP:N and no references per WP:V. Mh29255 ( talk) 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No evidence that the subject meets WP:N guidelines, i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an event of 100 people or under. Article largely written and maintained by the producer/promoter of the event ( User:Rosencomet) who has also added links to his autobio, Jeff Rosenbaum and the pages of people whose tapes/CDs he sells. Checked sources and almost all available ones were grossly padded. The two remaining third-party sources were unavailable to check as I could find no evidence of their existence. There are zero G-news hits. There are nn and COI issues all over the place with this one. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect ( talk) 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local supermarket. Covered by local papers after it sold its property to a larger chain. Mikeblas ( talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Scien tizzle 17:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
article fails to assert notability per WP:N, fails to provide outside sources per WP:V and reads like WP:SPAM. Mh29255 ( talk) 01:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Secret account 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
There is absolutely nothing notable about "Jewish Aggies," which is simply a label for a religious group of TAMU labels (same as Christian Aggies, Muslim Aggies, etc etc etc). The article claims they are associated with the Chabad of Brazos Valley, however all Aggies who are Jewish are "Jewish Aggies," it is not a trademarked term. Article is tagged as being under construction, but I see no good place this article could go. It is, at best, a dictionary term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Collectonian ( talk) 01:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikidemo ( talk) 02:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - early closure as it's clear where this will end - Peripitus (Talk) 23:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Only contains templates. Endarrt ( talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. — Scien tizzle 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Ambassadors are not considered notable by default, and this ambassador receives only two Google hits. I would consider the subject non-notable. SaveThePoint ( talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Though work was done on the article, the sources added were not sufficiently independent (e.g., a gallery that has displayed his work), and the copyright violation issue was never addressed, with a number of sentences remaining in the article still taken from Pearce's website. No prejudice against a brand new version, but it would have to be based on genuinely independent and reliable sources not to be considered a recreation. Chick Bowen 06:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per WP:N, no third-party references per WP:V, apparent WP:SPAM and WP:COI with no attempts made to correct problems. Mh29255 ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. If it comes back, salt it, as well. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Contested prod.
Well, just read it for yourself. Orginal essay, nonsense. Carados ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The current consensus is that the oldest resident ever of each US state is notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable supercentenarian who has little information on her aside from her age, lifespan, and the fact she was a homemaker that was fond of gardening. RandomOrca2 ( talk) 01:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete/redirect. Note: an anon IP removed the AfD notice on 30 December 2007, but the consensus here is clear enough that no relist appears necessary. — Scien tizzle 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an essay of some sort. Hemlock Martinis ( talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete; fails WP:BAND (though Jamie Ballayntyne may marginally meet it). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:COI issues and questionable notability, not to mention bound to fail WP:BAND. Anna Loggue ( talk) 00:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Helped to found a local martial arts school (no evidence that it's notable), won a handful of competitions (none of which are presented as notable), plays in a non-notable band... No evidence that this individual is in any way notable. -- Icarus ( Hi!) 00:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Oxymoron 83 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite some notable members, fails WP:BAND simple as that. Anna Loggue ( talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Bearian ( talk) 17:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject is non-notable. Step-son of Mack Brown, interfered with a play in the 2007 Holiday Bowl. That's it. Was prod'ed but template was removed.↔ NMajdan• talk 15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply
The entirety of all the coverage of Mr. Jessee has been the subject of is limited to his actions in the 2007 Holiday Bowl and thus his actions should be covered there. A separate article about him would, considering all the sources that have covered him so far, put far too much undue weight on his mistake in the Holiday Bowl and would be unfair the remainder of whatever else he's done in his life. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 02:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC) replyWikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.