The result was delete as User:Carlossuarez46 deleted it per WP:CSD#A1 Very short article without context. Non-admin closure-- Sefringle Talk 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic. Pats1 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied. Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Possible non notable veteran. No evidence that he received more coverage then a single newspaper article for his gruesome death. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy. Jaranda wat's sup 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable campus organization, references are a campus newspaper and trivial mention in local paper. No evidence of greater exposure. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN Daniel J. Leivick 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per nominator. Daniel Case 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unverfiable article about a fictional race in an MMORPG, written entirely in an in-universe perspective with no real-world context required by the guideline for writing about fiction. Topic is clearly of negligible notability, limited to players of the game. Any salvagable content already exists in the plot summaries in the articles on the game, viz. Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars: Eye of the North and Guild Wars 2; no merge is needed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charr (Guild wars) for a related AfD discussion on another species from the same game. Eric Sandholm 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable racist wiki. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
NN record label, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Case 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer. Mattythewhite 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete sorry not convinced by the keep votes, I heard of it, isn't a valid reason to keep. And the article has issues with WP:V and WP:RS like Tony says Jaranda wat's sup 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. -- Y not? 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close - AfD is not a place for content disputes, go to WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Non admin close. Giggy U C P 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a procedural nomination as there is an edit war that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. While the initiation of the AfD was procedural, my opinion is below. First nomination resulting in delete due to a copyright violation here. -- Oakshade 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game show episode. I don't see how it's any different from any other Legends of the Hidden Temple episode ever produced in any way other than changing the artifact, contestants, and winning teams. Thus, it seems this article is redundant with the main LotHT page. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (unnotable LotHT episodes):
As it seems I will not be allowed to create a comprehensive list of LotHT episodes due to non-notability (whatever that means), can I modify the episode guide list with a seperate column containing the result of the temple run, information very pertinent to LotHT ( Derferman 10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was merge. Jaranda wat's sup 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No claim of notability is made for the school, nor is it implicit in the article Jack1956 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:NEO. When the website you link to to back your claim up is not only your own site but merely a placeholder page from the registrar, I'd say you fail any sort of notability. More or less stealth spam. Daniel Case 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated by Totnesmartin ( talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as a neologism, saying that "There is no such term in sound recording". However, that is not a speedy deletion criteria. Procedural nomination; I abstain. Mike Peel 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
About three quarters of this article (the section titled "2 THOTH") are copied and pasted from Thoth, violating the GFDL in a needless duplication. For the rest, including claims like Merlin and Archimedes having been members of this "secret society", sources are missing (no, "Refferences & Sources: Wikipedia History Channel World Book Encyclopedia Discover Magazine etc." does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Citing sources). High on a tree 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sr 13 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An orphaned grab-bag of random trivial facts from different fictional contexts. These works have absolutely nothing in common other than being fictional and happening to reference a shared aribtrary number for a year. Note that the year project explicitly rejected putting fictional dates in real year articles as useless trivia; sequestering this useless trivia in its own article doesn't suddenly make it useful.
By the way, minor fictional points are generally considered to fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#IINFO, and sorting things by in-universe dates fails WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Daniel Case 03:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete The article makes no claim for notability for this school, nor is it implicit in the article
Jack1956 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Change to Keep In view of the work done on the article I withdraw my nomination for deletion
Jack1956
11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep Article has ref to DEFS website which is a secodary source as required by WP:ORG making it notable. A link to OFSTED report could be added for a further source. Keith D 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment So it's the building that's notable, and not the school? OFSTEd reports can confer notability if, for example, the school was reported as being 'outstanding'. Is that the case here? Jack1956 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was originally nominated for CSD, but the tag was removed by User:RobGuralnick (not the page's creator)... in fact, the last three edits to the page were made by him. While this person seems like a great professor, I believe that this fails WP:BIO (in addition to concerns about WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and the like). Eliz81 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an indiscriminate collection of information that is fancruft to boot, no matter how much this is expanded. Game show episodes are not notable in themselves. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete not only per WP:SNOW but as fundamentally too open and unmaintainable. Daniel Case 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is mostly just a list of completely random words such as boob, dustpan and yatzee (sic). Furthermore any real technologies are better categorized by the Wikipedia categories they are already in. KelleyCook 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unverifiable and OR, as of now. Daniel Case 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely original research, unverifiable information. east. 718 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
List of a bunch of characters from a single game. Most are unnotable and most are unsourceable. DurinsBane87 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as empty article that violated WP:CRYSTAL. Daniel Case 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
placeholder for speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated, should probably be salted too Ebyabe 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, any merging/redirecting is an editorial decision. Sandstein 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
article is filled with rewrite templates, its soccer material is redundant with or should be merged into football hooliganism, and a general hooliganism for all sports article is not needed as non-soccer-related violence is not usually referred to as "hooliganism". Luvcraft 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable football club in a non notable football league. 16 distinct Google hits for the football league [5], only 5 for Croeserw football club [6]. Club has only 35 players, no notable history (established in 1992, never played in a higher league), stadium with a capacity of 250, ... Fails WP:NOTE. Fram 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted and protected by Shell Kinney. Non-admin closure. Charlene 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was JUST deleted. It still a bio of a non-notable individual, all of the refs are to original work (Test and Evaluations through the government) that hardly meet notability. Also probably COI (new author, same content, possible sock). superβεεcat 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orignal AfD - resulted in speedy
WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.
The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm)
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source)
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls)
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors)
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)
Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products (Arguable) Afcyrus 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, variation on already deleted article Halloweentown: She's a Witch, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, like all the other future Disney Channel program articles, as currently unverifiable and speculative. Daniel Case 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if and when the game looks like it's really about to be released. Daniel Case 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A Stub about a game that isn't even confirmed. There's no evidence to it being made outside of a mistranslation. DurinsBane87 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I really don't think this is very notable, its not a page that should be in an Encyclopedia, but a page that should be in a strategy guide, and overall this doesn't seem to have any use on Wikipedia Zac4213 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both per WP:SNOW as WP:NFT. I have a very bad philling about them ... Daniel Case 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologisms with no references ( WP:Neologism, WP:V); just a self-referential walled garden. Prod contested. Marašmusïne Talk 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It could be that the same people wrote Ryde City Gunners Football Club and http://www.rydecitygunners.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=44 .
This raises suspicion of autobiography and spam. Anthony Appleyard 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Ugen64 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A bad idea to begin with, this article is poorly written and unsourced. Hemlock Martinis 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both as failing WP:BAND (only one CD). 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Shufflepuck and Adam Orth appear to both be non-notable. Couldn't find much about them and the only source I could find seems is a myspace page. - WarthogDemon 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:OR. Total lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. -- Y not? 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted Corpx 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician and filmmaker. She was in some bands that played some shows; she made a short film and put it on YouTube. Nothing seems to even approach notability. No reliable sources; most references are trivial. Prod removed without comment. Precious Roy 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - FisherQueen ( Talk) 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, no claims of notability other than "they were on a radio show". No reliable sources to show notability as well. Wildthing61476 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lankan cricket articles:various
The result was move to Wiktionary and delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is one of the most ridiculous lists as may be in wikipedia. For every occupation, political flavor, philosophical school, artictic trend, religious figure or sect, and whats not there is the corresponding "-ist", tens of thousands of them. `' Míkka 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as sources establish notability. Daniel Case 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I really don't think a former assistant coach is notable enough for an article, especially if it is to be so miniscule, somewhat unsourced and even trivial. Reywas92 Talk 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Case 05:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have proposed this article for deletion according to WP:NN. This article fails to meet the criteria set forth as follows:
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. There is no realistic chance this will result in consensus delete.-- Isotope23 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The page is basically a stub. Contains only plot summaries. No third party sources. No verifiable sources. About a minor character of no proven notability. Has no sources besides the Star Trek Wikipedia. The justifications for why he was kept before is "he made data" and other things that could be stated on the pages of the other characters or on a list of minor characters as opposed to needing his own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong reply
The result was Speedy delete. Mike Peel 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An online discussion thread, notable only for being very long, with no cited sources at all. I don't think this is notable. DES (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as nn joke party. Daniel Case 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hawkwind. Daniel Case 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Sources are missing. High on a tree 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax or extremely nn per attempts to verify. Daniel Case 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
dosn't appear to be real and/or notable. The supposed inventor, Neil Turok is named in the first edits, but a google on him and Cenetic Energy give no hits. Cenetic Energy alone give hardly no non-wikipedia hits. The first editor got a remark on his/her talk page for posting nonsense.( User talk:Shakna) I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics to get more scientific assessments
The result was redirect to jazz (there is not a separate modern jazz article). Daniel Case 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was mistakenly listed at MfD. I'm relisting at AfD, as proper. The nominator's original comment was "It is a stub that does little to cover a little known or obscure genre, and has many tags for cleanup. Considering the importance of the page, it would be easier to have it deleted Snail Doom 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)" reply
I second the sentiment that the page should be deleted, if only for failing WP:V, as it lacks sources. Xoloz 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment I thought 'neo jazz' was simply another name for 'modern jazz'. -- Malcolmxl5 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sr 13 01:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, no Google hits. The claims to notability, apart from being unsubstantiated, are borderline anyway (signed to major label but with no album published yet, some namedropping). Has been speedily deleted twice on July 13 [11]. High on a tree 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as failing WP:V. Daniel Case 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopaedic vanity page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmc ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on an up-and-coming music venue. No evidence of notability, unsourced. I had tagged it for an A7 speedy, but it was removed without explanation by an anon IP whose edits indicate that it might be the original author. -- Finngall talk 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect. Sr 13 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm absolutely certain this isn't notable as far as Wikipedia's concerned, and in any case the article is currently written like a magazine entry rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Angus Lepper( T, C, D) 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep of the speedy variety, given the withdrawal. Daniel 11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, since no secondary coverage is given. Tagged with notability concerns since Oct 06. PROD was contested with comment: "yes, it is an unsourced stub, but it being broadcast on ABC is enough of an assertion of notability to me". One might debate whether that point is an assertion of notability; however, it certainly does not establish notability. Simply being broadcast on a certain station cannot be a reason for inclusion: Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and notability is not inherited. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete Notability not established. --
Malcolmxl5
19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete by User:Carlossuarez46, A7. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Page created 26 March 2007 as a single sentence. Tagged for Speedy delete same day but tag removed next day after creator said he was going to interview the subject and write more (original research). Tagged for notability ever since, and the promised additions have not materialised. STill a one-sentence article, plus a mass of grafitti. Emeraude 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sources not provided to establish notability independent of subject's website; can be recreated if such sources are provided at that time. Daniel Case 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD was removed, which brings us here. Fails WP:BIO. Jauerback 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was rename to Non-English versions of The Simpsons. Sr 13 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think this article should stay on the English Wikipedia. The article is the similar case of already-deleted List of Smallville Korea voice actors. JSH-alive 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was RESULT. Delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, being "much-loved" is not an assertion of notability or most grandmothers would be "notable". Carlossuarez46 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable, article doesn't state why the person is being included, links link to facebook, and google comes up with nothing on his name being searched dr.alf 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-professional footballer. Mattythewhite 12:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as hoax with thanks to User:Trusilver for his work. -- Tony Sidaway 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I first looked at this article a little over a month ago. It seemed to me then that the article had been created, in April, as a campaigning piece against injustice, which of course isn't what encyclopedias are for. No work had been done to turn it into an article, and the only source cited was a website called "Free Zeke".
I proposed its deletion in mid-June but the tag was removed by the creator of the article, with a comment on the talk page. I put a "moresources" tag on it and left it there for the time being.
It's now a month later and only two further edits have been made, both of them by bots altering the categories.
It's time to reassess, possibly cleanup, or possibly delete, this item. As it stands at present I wouldn't call it an encyclopedia article. Rather it's a brief advocacy essay. It remains an orphan article. -- Tony Sidaway 12:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Title itself appears to be original research, as is the list of examples. Term "unofficially adopted" by whom? Discounting Wikipedia mirrors, I've found one instance of the phrase being used, but I don't think that's enough to sustain an article. -- EEMeltonIV 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as previously deleted and not currently notable. Daniel Case 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable federation with only 307 Ghits [13], and was previously deleted on 14th February 2007 [14] and tagged with a CSD G4 on 23rd February 2007 [15], the result of which caused the adding of a "media exposure" section [16], but none of the statements within that section have references, and none have been added in the last five months.
All the links through out the article to wrestlers are just youtube videos embedded on the Fed's homepage, and the Shawn Michaels link leads directly to a youtube link [17], which has been posted by the main editor [18].
While I do not doubt that this federation exists, it is nothing more than a non notable backyard fed which happens to have attracted some Christian wrestlers to make cameos. The article namedrops HBK and AJ, plus mentions notable TV shows, to imply notability, but notability is not inherited. And the most prolific editor, and article recreator [19] has already argued other stuff exists on the talkpage [20].
If there is third party mainstream coverage I haven't been able to find it. Initially I had PROD-ed the article but give the past I feel this needs to be put to bed.
The result was speedy deletion. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Hu 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) It is worth observing that the article creator removed the speedy delete tag. Then after he was informed that this was not permitted, an anonymous IP address removed the tag. Would an Admin be able to confirm or deny if the same IP address as the article's creator was used to evade the restriction? Hu 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied. Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; prod was contested. Sala Skan 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Bio does not satisfy WP:N Gilliam 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete I've read the article three times, without spotting a real claim to notability. Because that's the only thing that makes sense to me, I've assumed the word "a" is missing in the sentence describing him as "Commander" of the US. If I'm wrong, explanation is needed in the article and I amend my opinion to Speedy Keep. I'll ask our local library-hanger if she can find any more about this. --
Dweller
18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Net.kook of questionable notability. His articles ( Arthur T. Murray, Mentifex, AI4U, and Mind-1.1) have been deleted before, though this was in 2003 or 2004, and the deletion logs go back only to December 2004.
Last I checked, there are no independent published sources about Murray himself. There is one independent published source on his computer program, but it was an informal review by a medical doctor (not a computer scientist) in a non–peer-reviewed SIGPLAN newsletter. I think Murray might have won the alt.usenet.kooks Kook of the Year Award, but I'm not sure if that can be counted as a reliable source. — Psychonaut 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Questionable-notability incident (no google hits) in a poorly written article Guroadrunner 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as COI, not likely notable and unverifiable. If recreated after this, salt. Daniel Case 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, which is strange given his claimed accomplishments ("June 22, 2002 wins International Heavy-weight championship.") Google turns up empty. Probably hoax, but as such unfortunately not speedyable. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon 10:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's not a hoax. The information about Chris Chavis and Road Warrior Animal are true. No one vandalized any website. The information can be veryfied. In a search type Mr Irresistible vs Black Widow. On CZW type Uncivilized and watch the video. It will show all information to be correct. Matt Hendrickson did create Spiderball. His claims are true and all can be veryfied. -unsigned edit by 68.197.253.78 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The result was Delete as unsourced, without any verifiable, third party coverage. Given that this appears to be the rationale behind the consensus for deletion, if sources are found, ask me and I'll restore the article. Cheers, Wily D 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organisation seems to be one or a small group of schools, also unsourced.-- Nate1481( t/ c) 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. — Nate1481( t/ c) 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP#TRIVIA, as it is essentially a long list of subjects that have no connection other than that Kill Bill makes allusion to them. In addition, while allusions may be an important aspect of the film Kill Bill, a list of them is not necessary. One other very important thing to note is that nothing in this article is sourced, and indeed, much of it is simply unciteable, as it simply depicts a similarity between the two films that is subject to interpretation, some may see the connection and some may not, but in the end whether or not it is an allusion can not be confirmed. Calgary 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Case 03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The article fails for notability criteria. I have prod-ed the article, but the tag was immediately removed by the author without any further improvement. There are no substantial wikilinks to this article, searching on google does not provide reliable sources, the subject has no significant history to be included as a Wikipedia article, etc. — Indon ( reply) — 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Daniel Case 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No hint towards notability given; no secondary sources listed. Had been tagged with notability issues since Nov 06. PROD was contested without comment; some cleanup occured afterwards, but there's still no hint to notability. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. -- Deskana (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It is unclear whether "Golden Girls of Bulgaria" (in English?) was really an official and/or widely known nmae for these athletes. No sources added since November 06. Does not add any information that could not be included in the articles about the athletes (which do seem notable). Also not a likely search term, in my point of view. PROD was contested. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sr 13 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No, your eyes do not deceive you. These articles have been renominated for deletion. Why? Because they don't belong in the encyclopedia. In the recent AfD discussion for List of atheist Nobel laureates, many issues were brought up as to the purpose of these articles, the most important being that many of the Keep votes were on the basis of "only delete this if the other lists are deleted". That's what I hope we can do here.
I must reiterate first and most importantly that the Nobel Prize is not given on the basis of religion. These lists are a textbook example of an irrelevant intersection between two characteristics, akin to creating lists of other award winners based on religion (imagine a List of Jewish Grammy winners or a List of Christian Academy Award winners). None of these lists, not a single one, explains why their religion was important, or how their religion influenced their work in the Nobel laureate's field. If, theoretically, there were a Nobel laureate whose work was influenced by their religion, then that would be notable...in that person's article.
The standard article flaws are also seen here. The lists, with the exception of the atheist one, are either poorly sourced or completely unsourced, and in the case of the atheist list, none of the sources indicate a relation between their atheism and their work. These articles serve no purpose and fill no knowledge gap. With the above in mind, I urge deletion.
Note: These lists were previously nominated for deletion over a month ago. They were nominated without the atheist list, which underwent a separate AfD discussion that was closed two days ago.
The pages nominated for deletion are:
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I previously nominated Hayes along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Hayes is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transfer to Smith.
He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Hayes is neither. He's never held elected office and is not even known to cognoscenti of the left fringe.
He is also not a noted political philosopher and does not even appear to write the party pamphlets or articles in his party's paper that just about every other senior member of this small group does.
He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as nn student org. Daniel Case 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student organization website. The only real assertion of notability is that it's an "affiliate" member of google news, and that an organization it's associated with won an award. — PyTom 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:03, 22 July 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}} . |
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT - This is a list of terms and their definitions, which is what a dictionary is for. On top of that, all these words are cited to the episodes instead of a secondary source, qualifying it as WP:OR Corpx 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Non admin closure. -- Jorvik 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article reads like a brochure for this arcane piece of software. May not satisfy notability guidelines. Douglasmtaylor 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I initially deleted this as not asserting notability but the author quickly recreated it. While I admire their effort, this article is a clear attempt to promote the band and it is mostly an autobiographical conflict of interest. It is written by User:Nnoctis who you will note is one of the two musicians in the band. She also spread mentions of the band all over Wikipedia, including List of Satanists, Gothabilly, and... Absinthe in popular culture. While there are some links to band interviews in minor blogs and subculture web sites, there are no reliable references backing up any claims of notability. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax. Daniel Case 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Patent hoax. Lame one at that. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Kurykh 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - unreleased album plus no single release date equals WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unverifiable and likely nn. Daniel Case 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Jason Sorrell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does not appear to be notable. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, as it's a compendium of existing articles, which is pointless and a GFDL problem due to lack of contributor history. And can someone do something about the user recreating it? SamBC 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 14:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The text of this article was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD G4, based on the prior AfD. DRV overturned, finding this version substantially different and reliably-sourced. Still, Weak Delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism, there's never going to be proper refs for this, it's a magnet for POV and synthesis RxS 02:54, 17 July 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}} . |
KEEP this term is what everyone refers to when talking about the conundrum that is best explained in the September Clues videos 202.180.71.218 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — User:202.180.71.218 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.
It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism. Bsregistration 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — User:Bsregistration ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
TV fakery is alluded to in a Family Guy episode (plane crash).
Another tv fakery is the titanic safe opening. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3853272.html
TV fakery - in this case, I think TV Fakery is referring to TV's perpetual smurfy portrayal of real life: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077854/
Here is a case just published where they faked how many fish were caught on a tv show - they don't use the term tv fakery in the first article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2076254.ece
But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html
TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html
More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm
Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465
Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml
And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448
A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518 http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pba11 ( talk • contribs) — Pba11 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
brought to light. Lying with Pixels. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115 TV is the biggest propaganda tool. Keep this and keep it going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwitsend ( talk • contribs) — Atwitsend ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. — Kurykh 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was originally speedy-deleted per CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability. At least one source was also provided at the DRV, in an attempt to satisfy WP:V. Still, Weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 02:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There are 29 hits for this business in the NYT Archive including these 3 that affirm that MBC was the the only brewery in NYC when it opened in 1984 though "many decades" should be changed to over a decade. New York Times – April 16 1984 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E5D91438F935A25757C0A962948260 New York Times –Nov 9 1984 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDD1139F93AA35752C1A962948260 New York Times – Feb 22 1985 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DC1239F931A15751C0A963948260 Hope this helps Wittym Wittym 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:SNOW as OR and unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax, neologism or Original Research; no Ghits. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Free game, by non-notable company. Not finished, and unlikely to be any time soon. No reliable, independent sources. Prod was removed without addressing concerns. Drat ( Talk) 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Freeware game company. No independent, reliable sources. No references of any sort to back up claims of notability. Only game mentioned is still unfinished. Drat ( Talk) 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Reason for nomination. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. SamBC 02:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect ^ demon [omg plz] 10:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
None of the sources establish notability of the Cheat Commandos independently of Homestar Runner; notability is not inherited. The main HSR article confers upon the Cheat Commandos the extent of coverage they need on Wikipedia, given their level of notability. In short, this violates Wikipedia's notability and indiscriminate information policies. bwowen talk• contribs 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Barney & Friends cast. Also merged the other ones, per CambridgeBayWeather. -- Deskana (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character, could simply be merged into the Barney & Friends article. RandomOrca2 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to combat air patrol, which fits better than air superiority. Daniel Case 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
One line dictionary definition. Clarityfiend 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. An interesting idea better executed than you might expect, as Mandsford notes, but ultimately not the sort of thing Wikipedia is for. Daniel Case 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT lists of loosely associated topics. Indiscriminate criteria for a list, and includes places with no actual connection (anything from Eightmile Island to a bus stop in Pakistan). This is just as loosely connected as a list of places with colors in their name would be, or any other arbitrarily chosen theme. Saikokira 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is very casual in tone, and is a how-to-guide. This trick is arbitrary (we can't have a list of all CA's tricks). The article is completely unsourced, and is entirely original research. The YouTube link is probably a copyvio, the external link is spam. the_undertow talk 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment : If this one passes AFD, then others in the category Magic Tricks should be nomitated as well as the tone in each of them is the same. Also, since the magician's code forbids sharing magic secrets, perhaps Wikipedia should respect that as well. It's a stretch, but I still think it's rooted in tradition and could be respected. -- Renrenren 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment : Just another quick note. I see this will quite likely be deleted. If so, the other 4 levitations listed on this page should probably also go through an AFD. -- Renrenren 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Steve (Stephen) talk 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Deleted once via prod alread; prod template removed by creator this time around so its coming here. Does not show any verifiable sources that would meet WP:WEB, outside of some niche coverage when bought by Global Gaming League. Shell babelfish 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable Spam article lacking in verifiable sources. Seems also to be a small part of a larger problem on the project→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Jupitermedia_Corporation_.28Jupiterimages.29 Hu12 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, an indiscriminate list that is better referenced outside of WP -- Steve (Stephen) talk 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#INFO, causes problems for many users due to its size (266kb) Will ( talk) 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Product of MultiLing Corporation, whose article was just deleted. Came across this link and article and don't see any more notability claimed or proved than was for the software. Given that creator User:Provotrumpet seemed to be interested in Wikipedia solely as a promotional tool, I don't see that information likely as being added. Daniel Case 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable webcomic. Article itself gives no indication of notability, even saying that the comic's "quiet self-launch" "went largely unnoticed." A Google search for the name of the comic and the name of either of its authors returns 263 unique hits, rather low for something web-based, and a very large number appear to be irrelevant. Searching for the name of the comic with BOTH the names of its creators returns only Wikipedia. Its Alexa rank is under 5 million. Elmer Clark 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for deletion because, there is no assertion that this is a notable topic, and it also fails WP:NOT, it is a collection of indiscriminate data. Delete. Bryson 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for deletion because, there is no assertion that this is a notable topic, and it also fails WP:NOT, it is a collection of indiscriminate data. It is also un-referenced and suggests it fails WP:NOR. Delete.-- Bryson 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I could see how this article could be of use to some people, but it seems to be beyond the understanding of some folks that this is a fictional topic. The article is also so long and so meandering, it fails to have much use to the public at large, which is the whole point of encyclopedic articles. This article needs to go unless someone's willing to spend a year or so cleaning it up. 71.76.220.91 04:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as User:Carlossuarez46 deleted it per WP:CSD#A1 Very short article without context. Non-admin closure-- Sefringle Talk 01:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-encyclopedic. Pats1 23:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied. Jaranda wat's sup 01:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Possible non notable veteran. No evidence that he received more coverage then a single newspaper article for his gruesome death. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN. Daniel J. Leivick 23:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy. Jaranda wat's sup 01:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable campus organization, references are a campus newspaper and trivial mention in local paper. No evidence of greater exposure. Sorted as part of WP:WPNN Daniel J. Leivick 23:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per nominator. Daniel Case 03:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unverfiable article about a fictional race in an MMORPG, written entirely in an in-universe perspective with no real-world context required by the guideline for writing about fiction. Topic is clearly of negligible notability, limited to players of the game. Any salvagable content already exists in the plot summaries in the articles on the game, viz. Guild Wars Prophecies, Guild Wars: Eye of the North and Guild Wars 2; no merge is needed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charr (Guild wars) for a related AfD discussion on another species from the same game. Eric Sandholm 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable racist wiki. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
NN record label, fails WP:MUSIC Rackabello 22:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Case 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable footballer. Mattythewhite 21:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete sorry not convinced by the keep votes, I heard of it, isn't a valid reason to keep. And the article has issues with WP:V and WP:RS like Tony says Jaranda wat's sup 20:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism. -- Y not? 21:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close - AfD is not a place for content disputes, go to WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. Non admin close. Giggy U C P 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is a procedural nomination as there is an edit war that doesn't seem to have an end in sight. While the initiation of the AfD was procedural, my opinion is below. First nomination resulting in delete due to a copyright violation here. -- Oakshade 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game show episode. I don't see how it's any different from any other Legends of the Hidden Temple episode ever produced in any way other than changing the artifact, contestants, and winning teams. Thus, it seems this article is redundant with the main LotHT page. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (unnotable LotHT episodes):
As it seems I will not be allowed to create a comprehensive list of LotHT episodes due to non-notability (whatever that means), can I modify the episode guide list with a seperate column containing the result of the temple run, information very pertinent to LotHT ( Derferman 10:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)) reply
The result was merge. Jaranda wat's sup 20:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No claim of notability is made for the school, nor is it implicit in the article Jack1956 21:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:NEO. When the website you link to to back your claim up is not only your own site but merely a placeholder page from the registrar, I'd say you fail any sort of notability. More or less stealth spam. Daniel Case 03:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article was nominated by Totnesmartin ( talk · contribs) for speedy deletion as a neologism, saying that "There is no such term in sound recording". However, that is not a speedy deletion criteria. Procedural nomination; I abstain. Mike Peel 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
About three quarters of this article (the section titled "2 THOTH") are copied and pasted from Thoth, violating the GFDL in a needless duplication. For the rest, including claims like Merlin and Archimedes having been members of this "secret society", sources are missing (no, "Refferences & Sources: Wikipedia History Channel World Book Encyclopedia Discover Magazine etc." does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Citing sources). High on a tree 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sr 13 00:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An orphaned grab-bag of random trivial facts from different fictional contexts. These works have absolutely nothing in common other than being fictional and happening to reference a shared aribtrary number for a year. Note that the year project explicitly rejected putting fictional dates in real year articles as useless trivia; sequestering this useless trivia in its own article doesn't suddenly make it useful.
By the way, minor fictional points are generally considered to fail WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:NOT#IINFO, and sorting things by in-universe dates fails WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Daniel Case 03:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speedy delete The article makes no claim for notability for this school, nor is it implicit in the article
Jack1956 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Change to Keep In view of the work done on the article I withdraw my nomination for deletion
Jack1956
11:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
Keep Article has ref to DEFS website which is a secodary source as required by WP:ORG making it notable. A link to OFSTED report could be added for a further source. Keith D 21:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment So it's the building that's notable, and not the school? OFSTEd reports can confer notability if, for example, the school was reported as being 'outstanding'. Is that the case here? Jack1956 12:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article was originally nominated for CSD, but the tag was removed by User:RobGuralnick (not the page's creator)... in fact, the last three edits to the page were made by him. While this person seems like a great professor, I believe that this fails WP:BIO (in addition to concerns about WP:AUTO, WP:COI, and the like). Eliz81 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Eliz81 20:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 19:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is an indiscriminate collection of information that is fancruft to boot, no matter how much this is expanded. Game show episodes are not notable in themselves. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete not only per WP:SNOW but as fundamentally too open and unmaintainable. Daniel Case 19:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is mostly just a list of completely random words such as boob, dustpan and yatzee (sic). Furthermore any real technologies are better categorized by the Wikipedia categories they are already in. KelleyCook 20:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unverifiable and OR, as of now. Daniel Case 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely original research, unverifiable information. east. 718 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 05:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
List of a bunch of characters from a single game. Most are unnotable and most are unsourceable. DurinsBane87 20:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as empty article that violated WP:CRYSTAL. Daniel Case 05:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
placeholder for speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated, should probably be salted too Ebyabe 19:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, any merging/redirecting is an editorial decision. Sandstein 14:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
article is filled with rewrite templates, its soccer material is redundant with or should be merged into football hooliganism, and a general hooliganism for all sports article is not needed as non-soccer-related violence is not usually referred to as "hooliganism". Luvcraft 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable football club in a non notable football league. 16 distinct Google hits for the football league [5], only 5 for Croeserw football club [6]. Club has only 35 players, no notable history (established in 1992, never played in a higher league), stadium with a capacity of 250, ... Fails WP:NOTE. Fram 19:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted and protected by Shell Kinney. Non-admin closure. Charlene 22:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was JUST deleted. It still a bio of a non-notable individual, all of the refs are to original work (Test and Evaluations through the government) that hardly meet notability. Also probably COI (new author, same content, possible sock). superβεεcat 19:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Orignal AfD - resulted in speedy
WP:BIO and WP:N say that if ANY of the following have been met, the individual is notable. MOST have been met.
The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. (TRUE - http://dc3.mil/dcci/contact.htm)
The person has been the subject of a credible independent biography. (TRUE - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/biographies_2.asp#CyrusRobinson source)
The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. (TRUE - http://www.afoats.af.mil/AFROTC/documents/ECP_PostSelectionDatabase.xls)
The person has demonstrable wide name recognition (TRUE - briefed at DoD Conference - http://www.technologyforums.com/7CC/Descriptions.asp#ImagingHardDrivesWithBadSectors)
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (Arguable)
Commercial endorsements of demonstrably notable products (Arguable) Afcyrus 21:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 00:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, variation on already deleted article Halloweentown: She's a Witch, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, like all the other future Disney Channel program articles, as currently unverifiable and speculative. Daniel Case 15:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Speculative article about possible future Disney Channel movie, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, when movie is made, then article can be recreated. Until then, should probably be salted as well. Ebyabe 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice per WP:SNOW and WP:CRYSTAL. Article can be recreated if and when the game looks like it's really about to be released. Daniel Case 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A Stub about a game that isn't even confirmed. There's no evidence to it being made outside of a mistranslation. DurinsBane87 19:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I really don't think this is very notable, its not a page that should be in an Encyclopedia, but a page that should be in a strategy guide, and overall this doesn't seem to have any use on Wikipedia Zac4213 19:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both per WP:SNOW as WP:NFT. I have a very bad philling about them ... Daniel Case 03:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologisms with no references ( WP:Neologism, WP:V); just a self-referential walled garden. Prod contested. Marašmusïne Talk 19:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as copyvio. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It could be that the same people wrote Ryde City Gunners Football Club and http://www.rydecitygunners.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=44 .
This raises suspicion of autobiography and spam. Anthony Appleyard 18:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Ugen64 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close. cab 05:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
A bad idea to begin with, this article is poorly written and unsourced. Hemlock Martinis 18:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both as failing WP:BAND (only one CD). 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Shufflepuck and Adam Orth appear to both be non-notable. Couldn't find much about them and the only source I could find seems is a myspace page. - WarthogDemon 18:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, WP:OR. Total lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. -- Y not? 18:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted Corpx 02:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable musician and filmmaker. She was in some bands that played some shows; she made a short film and put it on YouTube. Nothing seems to even approach notability. No reliable sources; most references are trivial. Prod removed without comment. Precious Roy 18:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete - FisherQueen ( Talk) 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, no claims of notability other than "they were on a radio show". No reliable sources to show notability as well. Wildthing61476 18:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Lankan cricket articles:various
The result was move to Wiktionary and delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This is one of the most ridiculous lists as may be in wikipedia. For every occupation, political flavor, philosophical school, artictic trend, religious figure or sect, and whats not there is the corresponding "-ist", tens of thousands of them. `' Míkka 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as sources establish notability. Daniel Case 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I really don't think a former assistant coach is notable enough for an article, especially if it is to be so miniscule, somewhat unsourced and even trivial. Reywas92 Talk 17:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Case 05:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I have proposed this article for deletion according to WP:NN. This article fails to meet the criteria set forth as follows:
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. There is no realistic chance this will result in consensus delete.-- Isotope23 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The page is basically a stub. Contains only plot summaries. No third party sources. No verifiable sources. About a minor character of no proven notability. Has no sources besides the Star Trek Wikipedia. The justifications for why he was kept before is "he made data" and other things that could be stated on the pages of the other characters or on a list of minor characters as opposed to needing his own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong reply
The result was Speedy delete. Mike Peel 20:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
An online discussion thread, notable only for being very long, with no cited sources at all. I don't think this is notable. DES (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as nn joke party. Daniel Case 17:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hawkwind. Daniel Case 03:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Sources are missing. High on a tree 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax or extremely nn per attempts to verify. Daniel Case 21:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
dosn't appear to be real and/or notable. The supposed inventor, Neil Turok is named in the first edits, but a google on him and Cenetic Energy give no hits. Cenetic Energy alone give hardly no non-wikipedia hits. The first editor got a remark on his/her talk page for posting nonsense.( User talk:Shakna) I have notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics to get more scientific assessments
The result was redirect to jazz (there is not a separate modern jazz article). Daniel Case 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This page was mistakenly listed at MfD. I'm relisting at AfD, as proper. The nominator's original comment was "It is a stub that does little to cover a little known or obscure genre, and has many tags for cleanup. Considering the importance of the page, it would be easier to have it deleted Snail Doom 19:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)" reply
I second the sentiment that the page should be deleted, if only for failing WP:V, as it lacks sources. Xoloz 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment I thought 'neo jazz' was simply another name for 'modern jazz'. -- Malcolmxl5 16:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sr 13 01:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, no Google hits. The claims to notability, apart from being unsubstantiated, are borderline anyway (signed to major label but with no album published yet, some namedropping). Has been speedily deleted twice on July 13 [11]. High on a tree 15:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as failing WP:V. Daniel Case 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopaedic vanity page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colmc ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article on an up-and-coming music venue. No evidence of notability, unsourced. I had tagged it for an A7 speedy, but it was removed without explanation by an anon IP whose edits indicate that it might be the original author. -- Finngall talk 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was merge and redirect. Sr 13 01:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I'm absolutely certain this isn't notable as far as Wikipedia's concerned, and in any case the article is currently written like a magazine entry rather than an encyclopaedia entry. Angus Lepper( T, C, D) 15:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep of the speedy variety, given the withdrawal. Daniel 11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N, since no secondary coverage is given. Tagged with notability concerns since Oct 06. PROD was contested with comment: "yes, it is an unsourced stub, but it being broadcast on ABC is enough of an assertion of notability to me". One might debate whether that point is an assertion of notability; however, it certainly does not establish notability. Simply being broadcast on a certain station cannot be a reason for inclusion: Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and notability is not inherited. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete Notability not established. --
Malcolmxl5
19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete by User:Carlossuarez46, A7. Non-admin closure. Blueboy 96 21:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Page created 26 March 2007 as a single sentence. Tagged for Speedy delete same day but tag removed next day after creator said he was going to interview the subject and write more (original research). Tagged for notability ever since, and the promised additions have not materialised. STill a one-sentence article, plus a mass of grafitti. Emeraude 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sources not provided to establish notability independent of subject's website; can be recreated if such sources are provided at that time. Daniel Case 17:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
PROD was removed, which brings us here. Fails WP:BIO. Jauerback 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was rename to Non-English versions of The Simpsons. Sr 13 01:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think this article should stay on the English Wikipedia. The article is the similar case of already-deleted List of Smallville Korea voice actors. JSH-alive 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was RESULT. Delete per WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, being "much-loved" is not an assertion of notability or most grandmothers would be "notable". Carlossuarez46 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable, article doesn't state why the person is being included, links link to facebook, and google comes up with nothing on his name being searched dr.alf 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-professional footballer. Mattythewhite 12:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as hoax with thanks to User:Trusilver for his work. -- Tony Sidaway 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I first looked at this article a little over a month ago. It seemed to me then that the article had been created, in April, as a campaigning piece against injustice, which of course isn't what encyclopedias are for. No work had been done to turn it into an article, and the only source cited was a website called "Free Zeke".
I proposed its deletion in mid-June but the tag was removed by the creator of the article, with a comment on the talk page. I put a "moresources" tag on it and left it there for the time being.
It's now a month later and only two further edits have been made, both of them by bots altering the categories.
It's time to reassess, possibly cleanup, or possibly delete, this item. As it stands at present I wouldn't call it an encyclopedia article. Rather it's a brief advocacy essay. It remains an orphan article. -- Tony Sidaway 12:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Title itself appears to be original research, as is the list of examples. Term "unofficially adopted" by whom? Discounting Wikipedia mirrors, I've found one instance of the phrase being used, but I don't think that's enough to sustain an article. -- EEMeltonIV 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as previously deleted and not currently notable. Daniel Case 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable federation with only 307 Ghits [13], and was previously deleted on 14th February 2007 [14] and tagged with a CSD G4 on 23rd February 2007 [15], the result of which caused the adding of a "media exposure" section [16], but none of the statements within that section have references, and none have been added in the last five months.
All the links through out the article to wrestlers are just youtube videos embedded on the Fed's homepage, and the Shawn Michaels link leads directly to a youtube link [17], which has been posted by the main editor [18].
While I do not doubt that this federation exists, it is nothing more than a non notable backyard fed which happens to have attracted some Christian wrestlers to make cameos. The article namedrops HBK and AJ, plus mentions notable TV shows, to imply notability, but notability is not inherited. And the most prolific editor, and article recreator [19] has already argued other stuff exists on the talkpage [20].
If there is third party mainstream coverage I haven't been able to find it. Initially I had PROD-ed the article but give the past I feel this needs to be put to bed.
The result was speedy deletion. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. Hu 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) It is worth observing that the article creator removed the speedy delete tag. Then after he was informed that this was not permitted, an anonymous IP address removed the tag. Would an Admin be able to confirm or deny if the same IP address as the article's creator was used to evade the restriction? Hu 12:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedied. Jaranda wat's sup 01:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; prod was contested. Sala Skan 12:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Bio does not satisfy WP:N Gilliam 11:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
*Delete I've read the article three times, without spotting a real claim to notability. Because that's the only thing that makes sense to me, I've assumed the word "a" is missing in the sentence describing him as "Commander" of the US. If I'm wrong, explanation is needed in the article and I amend my opinion to Speedy Keep. I'll ask our local library-hanger if she can find any more about this. --
Dweller
18:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Net.kook of questionable notability. His articles ( Arthur T. Murray, Mentifex, AI4U, and Mind-1.1) have been deleted before, though this was in 2003 or 2004, and the deletion logs go back only to December 2004.
Last I checked, there are no independent published sources about Murray himself. There is one independent published source on his computer program, but it was an informal review by a medical doctor (not a computer scientist) in a non–peer-reviewed SIGPLAN newsletter. I think Murray might have won the alt.usenet.kooks Kook of the Year Award, but I'm not sure if that can be counted as a reliable source. — Psychonaut 11:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Jaranda wat's sup 21:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Questionable-notability incident (no google hits) in a poorly written article Guroadrunner 11:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as COI, not likely notable and unverifiable. If recreated after this, salt. Daniel Case 17:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No sources, which is strange given his claimed accomplishments ("June 22, 2002 wins International Heavy-weight championship.") Google turns up empty. Probably hoax, but as such unfortunately not speedyable. Prod removed by anon without improvement. Huon 10:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It's not a hoax. The information about Chris Chavis and Road Warrior Animal are true. No one vandalized any website. The information can be veryfied. In a search type Mr Irresistible vs Black Widow. On CZW type Uncivilized and watch the video. It will show all information to be correct. Matt Hendrickson did create Spiderball. His claims are true and all can be veryfied. -unsigned edit by 68.197.253.78 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The result was Delete as unsourced, without any verifiable, third party coverage. Given that this appears to be the rationale behind the consensus for deletion, if sources are found, ask me and I'll restore the article. Cheers, Wily D 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable organisation seems to be one or a small group of schools, also unsourced.-- Nate1481( t/ c) 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of martial arts-related deletions. — Nate1481( t/ c) 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Fails WP#TRIVIA, as it is essentially a long list of subjects that have no connection other than that Kill Bill makes allusion to them. In addition, while allusions may be an important aspect of the film Kill Bill, a list of them is not necessary. One other very important thing to note is that nothing in this article is sourced, and indeed, much of it is simply unciteable, as it simply depicts a similarity between the two films that is subject to interpretation, some may see the connection and some may not, but in the end whether or not it is an allusion can not be confirmed. Calgary 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel Case 03:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The article fails for notability criteria. I have prod-ed the article, but the tag was immediately removed by the author without any further improvement. There are no substantial wikilinks to this article, searching on google does not provide reliable sources, the subject has no significant history to be included as a Wikipedia article, etc. — Indon ( reply) — 08:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Daniel Case 03:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No hint towards notability given; no secondary sources listed. Had been tagged with notability issues since Nov 06. PROD was contested without comment; some cleanup occured afterwards, but there's still no hint to notability. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 08:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. -- Deskana (talk) 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
It is unclear whether "Golden Girls of Bulgaria" (in English?) was really an official and/or widely known nmae for these athletes. No sources added since November 06. Does not add any information that could not be included in the articles about the athletes (which do seem notable). Also not a likely search term, in my point of view. PROD was contested. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. -- B. Wolterding 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete all. Sr 13 01:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
No, your eyes do not deceive you. These articles have been renominated for deletion. Why? Because they don't belong in the encyclopedia. In the recent AfD discussion for List of atheist Nobel laureates, many issues were brought up as to the purpose of these articles, the most important being that many of the Keep votes were on the basis of "only delete this if the other lists are deleted". That's what I hope we can do here.
I must reiterate first and most importantly that the Nobel Prize is not given on the basis of religion. These lists are a textbook example of an irrelevant intersection between two characteristics, akin to creating lists of other award winners based on religion (imagine a List of Jewish Grammy winners or a List of Christian Academy Award winners). None of these lists, not a single one, explains why their religion was important, or how their religion influenced their work in the Nobel laureate's field. If, theoretically, there were a Nobel laureate whose work was influenced by their religion, then that would be notable...in that person's article.
The standard article flaws are also seen here. The lists, with the exception of the atheist one, are either poorly sourced or completely unsourced, and in the case of the atheist list, none of the sources indicate a relation between their atheism and their work. These articles serve no purpose and fill no knowledge gap. With the above in mind, I urge deletion.
Note: These lists were previously nominated for deletion over a month ago. They were nominated without the atheist list, which underwent a separate AfD discussion that was closed two days ago.
The pages nominated for deletion are:
The result was delete. Sr 13 01:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I previously nominated Hayes along with a number of other individuals, whom I was subsequently convinced were of a varying degree of notability. For this reason, I withdrew my group nomination and agreed to relist the non-notable articles individually. Hayes is a functionary in a very small (but notable) political party in the UK. While his party is notable and contains notable persons, this notability does not transfer to Smith.
He fails Wikipedia policy for notability for politician which determine that only those politicians "who have held international, national or statewide/provincewide office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislatures." or are "(m)ajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. Hayes is neither. He's never held elected office and is not even known to cognoscenti of the left fringe.
He is also not a noted political philosopher and does not even appear to write the party pamphlets or articles in his party's paper that just about every other senior member of this small group does.
He is also not a noted union figure nor a noted extra-parliamentary figure. Bigdaddy1981 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as nn student org. Daniel Case 03:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable student organization website. The only real assertion of notability is that it's an "affiliate" member of google news, and that an organization it's associated with won an award. — PyTom 05:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:03, 22 July 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}} . |
Delete per WP:NOT#DICT - This is a list of terms and their definitions, which is what a dictionary is for. On top of that, all these words are cited to the episodes instead of a secondary source, qualifying it as WP:OR Corpx 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Non admin closure. -- Jorvik 09:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Article reads like a brochure for this arcane piece of software. May not satisfy notability guidelines. Douglasmtaylor 04:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I initially deleted this as not asserting notability but the author quickly recreated it. While I admire their effort, this article is a clear attempt to promote the band and it is mostly an autobiographical conflict of interest. It is written by User:Nnoctis who you will note is one of the two musicians in the band. She also spread mentions of the band all over Wikipedia, including List of Satanists, Gothabilly, and... Absinthe in popular culture. While there are some links to band interviews in minor blogs and subculture web sites, there are no reliable references backing up any claims of notability. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as hoax. Daniel Case 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Patent hoax. Lame one at that. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Kurykh 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Delete - unreleased album plus no single release date equals WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 04:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as unverifiable and likely nn. Daniel Case 21:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Jason Sorrell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Does not appear to be notable. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 21:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 20:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, as it's a compendium of existing articles, which is pointless and a GFDL problem due to lack of contributor history. And can someone do something about the user recreating it? SamBC 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 14:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The text of this article was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD G4, based on the prior AfD. DRV overturned, finding this version substantially different and reliably-sourced. Still, Weak Delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 03:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Neologism, there's never going to be proper refs for this, it's a magnet for POV and synthesis RxS 02:54, 17 July 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}} . |
KEEP this term is what everyone refers to when talking about the conundrum that is best explained in the September Clues videos 202.180.71.218 03:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC) — User:202.180.71.218 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The term "TV Fakery" generates over 34 thousand hits on Google, and it is the preferred term for the topic under discussion.
It's a serious subject for an encyclopedia, and it's not adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The term is in use on both sides of the Atlantic, it's clear and descriptive. The article itself is about the phenomenon of TV Fakery, which does not properly belong to other pages of Wikipedia yet is an important topic that deserves a page of its own. The Chicago Sun times article used the term TV Fakery properly 20 years ago proving that it's not a neologism. Bsregistration 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) — User:Bsregistration ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
TV fakery is alluded to in a Family Guy episode (plane crash).
Another tv fakery is the titanic safe opening. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-3853272.html
TV fakery - in this case, I think TV Fakery is referring to TV's perpetual smurfy portrayal of real life: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077854/
Here is a case just published where they faked how many fish were caught on a tv show - they don't use the term tv fakery in the first article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2076254.ece
But same story here and they use the term tv fakery: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,2127536,00.html
TV Fakery used here (1999 article): http://archive.thisisyork.co.uk/1999/2/12/324772.html
More tv fakery but the term isn't used: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6433589.stm
Again - term tv fakery used here (2000): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20000117/ai_n10578465
Again - term tv fakery used here (2002) last paragraph: http://www.dvdmg.com/annanicoleseason1.shtml
And a special dedicated to tv fakery - BBC2 - 1998: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/series/30448
A similar but slightly different phenomenom from tv fakery - VNR - Video News Releases - videos made by corporations and given to news media and run as news without editing or censoring. Much is apparently propaganda: http://www.prwatch.org/node/3518 http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pba11 ( talk • contribs) — Pba11 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
brought to light. Lying with Pixels. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=12115 TV is the biggest propaganda tool. Keep this and keep it going! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atwitsend ( talk • contribs) — Atwitsend ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was keep. — Kurykh 03:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This was originally speedy-deleted per CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability. At least one source was also provided at the DRV, in an attempt to satisfy WP:V. Still, Weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 02:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
There are 29 hits for this business in the NYT Archive including these 3 that affirm that MBC was the the only brewery in NYC when it opened in 1984 though "many decades" should be changed to over a decade. New York Times – April 16 1984 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E5D91438F935A25757C0A962948260 New York Times –Nov 9 1984 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00EFDD1139F93AA35752C1A962948260 New York Times – Feb 22 1985 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DC1239F931A15751C0A963948260 Hope this helps Wittym Wittym 22:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:SNOW as OR and unencyclopedic. Daniel Case 03:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax, neologism or Original Research; no Ghits. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Free game, by non-notable company. Not finished, and unlikely to be any time soon. No reliable, independent sources. Prod was removed without addressing concerns. Drat ( Talk) 02:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Freeware game company. No independent, reliable sources. No references of any sort to back up claims of notability. Only game mentioned is still unfinished. Drat ( Talk) 02:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 14:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Reason for nomination. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. SamBC 02:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect ^ demon [omg plz] 10:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
None of the sources establish notability of the Cheat Commandos independently of Homestar Runner; notability is not inherited. The main HSR article confers upon the Cheat Commandos the extent of coverage they need on Wikipedia, given their level of notability. In short, this violates Wikipedia's notability and indiscriminate information policies. bwowen talk• contribs 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Barney & Friends cast. Also merged the other ones, per CambridgeBayWeather. -- Deskana (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non-notable character, could simply be merged into the Barney & Friends article. RandomOrca2 01:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to combat air patrol, which fits better than air superiority. Daniel Case 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
One line dictionary definition. Clarityfiend 01:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. An interesting idea better executed than you might expect, as Mandsford notes, but ultimately not the sort of thing Wikipedia is for. Daniel Case 02:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT lists of loosely associated topics. Indiscriminate criteria for a list, and includes places with no actual connection (anything from Eightmile Island to a bus stop in Pakistan). This is just as loosely connected as a list of places with colors in their name would be, or any other arbitrarily chosen theme. Saikokira 01:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
This article is very casual in tone, and is a how-to-guide. This trick is arbitrary (we can't have a list of all CA's tricks). The article is completely unsourced, and is entirely original research. The YouTube link is probably a copyvio, the external link is spam. the_undertow talk 01:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment : If this one passes AFD, then others in the category Magic Tricks should be nomitated as well as the tone in each of them is the same. Also, since the magician's code forbids sharing magic secrets, perhaps Wikipedia should respect that as well. It's a stretch, but I still think it's rooted in tradition and could be respected. -- Renrenren 01:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Comment : Just another quick note. I see this will quite likely be deleted. If so, the other 4 levitations listed on this page should probably also go through an AFD. -- Renrenren 16:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Steve (Stephen) talk 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Deleted once via prod alread; prod template removed by creator this time around so its coming here. Does not show any verifiable sources that would meet WP:WEB, outside of some niche coverage when bought by Global Gaming League. Shell babelfish 04:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sr 13 02:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ~ Wikihermit 14:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Non notable Spam article lacking in verifiable sources. Seems also to be a small part of a larger problem on the project→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Jupitermedia_Corporation_.28Jupiterimages.29 Hu12 12:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, an indiscriminate list that is better referenced outside of WP -- Steve (Stephen) talk 05:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT#INFO, causes problems for many users due to its size (266kb) Will ( talk) 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Product of MultiLing Corporation, whose article was just deleted. Came across this link and article and don't see any more notability claimed or proved than was for the software. Given that creator User:Provotrumpet seemed to be interested in Wikipedia solely as a promotional tool, I don't see that information likely as being added. Daniel Case 21:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable webcomic. Article itself gives no indication of notability, even saying that the comic's "quiet self-launch" "went largely unnoticed." A Google search for the name of the comic and the name of either of its authors returns 263 unique hits, rather low for something web-based, and a very large number appear to be irrelevant. Searching for the name of the comic with BOTH the names of its creators returns only Wikipedia. Its Alexa rank is under 5 million. Elmer Clark 23:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for deletion because, there is no assertion that this is a notable topic, and it also fails WP:NOT, it is a collection of indiscriminate data. Delete. Bryson 23:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 21:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC) reply
I am nominating this for deletion because, there is no assertion that this is a notable topic, and it also fails WP:NOT, it is a collection of indiscriminate data. It is also un-referenced and suggests it fails WP:NOR. Delete.-- Bryson 23:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply
Weak delete I could see how this article could be of use to some people, but it seems to be beyond the understanding of some folks that this is a fictional topic. The article is also so long and so meandering, it fails to have much use to the public at large, which is the whole point of encyclopedic articles. This article needs to go unless someone's willing to spend a year or so cleaning it up. 71.76.220.91 04:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply