The result was keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is just an article about a radio show that is not very known. Sounds as an advertisement. Damiens.rf 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod of "No assertion of notability. Looks like a non-notable instant messenger program." removed with comment "I don't believe that this article should be deleted as this instant messenger will soon be released to the general public and will be updated on a regular basis" by User:Trebor678. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"
The result was Deleted (non-admin closure), Speedied by Discospinster. Bfigura ( talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)" reply
Sounds like a hoax to me, no sources, etc... Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Its a person. Its a persons page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyprice221 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Article needs a better structure, but consensus is that notability guidelines are met.-- Kubigula ( talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally listed for Speedy, non-notable book, unsourced, fails WP:BK Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here is the reference for When Nothing Else Matters by Michael Leahy. [1]
You can also find information about it on Simon and Schuster's website [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtimesroll8 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is no more than just an advertisement for a recent (2008!) non-notable book (by a on-notable author). We shouldn't allow this kind of articles on Wikipedia. Damiens.rf 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: To become less of an advertisement and more like a real article, the article should focus on why is the book important (is it influential? polemical? expected?) and less in describing the book's contents. The current book analysis in the article is original research, since it's based on the book itself, and not on secondary sources. But still we have to determine which of the 5 criterion on Wikipedia:Notability (books) apply to this book ( "1" is borderline). -- Damiens.rf 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete--Publication fails wikipedia's notability guidelines, as a simple google search will reveal. Stanley011 ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. There is no way this article is going to get deleted, as the artist is extremely well known, although it does need some attention. Ty 10:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Biography of a living person with no references or assertion of notability. Sole external link seemingly is subject's own page. Hellno2 ( talk) 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. Dloh cierekim 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax. The linked Federal Security Agency was reorganized into the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1949. The single reference is busted. Homeland Security and no mention of the OAS. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Article has been improved during the discussion, and later comments are all to keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It was speedily deleted once, recreated, but kept after the second CSD tag was placed. There's very little notability here, and the fact that she was the daughter of X it doesn't automatically make her notable. I've waited on this for quite a while, but the article hasn't changed since the speedy, and I can't find much on her at all. PeterSymonds | talk 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not, but Google is completely unaware that this person was in any of the movies listed. Rnb ( talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to
Wichita Falls Independent School District.
Camaron | Chris
(talk)
12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
No notability asserted for a middle school. Frog47 ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's favorite Cookie 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod was removed twice, no real name, no citations. Fails WP:BIO Athlete. Govvy ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Scarface (1983 film). Rudget 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Where do I begin? I was very surprised not to find a speedy category that applied to this article. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. Article was prodded and the prod removed by the editor who created it without making any substantial improvements. I favor quick deletion per WP:SNOW. Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Phoenix - wiki 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable local radio show. The only references here are to instances where the show was cancelled. Article doesn't make it clear how this show is notable. Rtphokie ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G4 by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't establish notability. A similar article, "Tour de G'ville" was speedy deleted 03:50, 20 February 2008 as A7. Db-A7 was denied here, but article hasn't improved substantially since February. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to California Institute of the Arts. Walton One 18:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged as questionable notability for 11 months without any substantial improvement. All references found in a reasonable search were about individuals at the institution, not the institution itself. Pastordavid ( talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to meet music notability standards for a band. Article was replaced after CSD A7 deletion [7]. Dougie WII ( talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Davis School District -- JForget 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-line article about a nn middle school Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Walton One 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary and unnotable list of voice actors for Sailor Moon. This information is already included in the individual character articles and the list of minor characters. A standalone list is unnecessary and Wikipedia is not a directory of voice actors in a series. Collectonian ( talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep List seems to have detailed content that would convolute the
Sailor Moon article. Most of the entries have an article associated with them and is appears to be a valuable collection and quick reference to all the voices that are used for these characters. Seems to pass
WP:N and
WP:V. Good enough for me. --
Pmedema (
talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)* - Delete as per TheFarix's comment below. --
Pmedema (
talk)
15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Wikiacc ( ¶) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable list of locations in Sailor Moon, barely sourced and what is sourced comes from a handful of primary sources. The rest is filled with plot details and personal opinions/suppositions/theories. No real-world notability of any of these locations, and what relevance they have to the plot is covered simply by mentioning them in the relevant context. Wikipedia is not a Sailor Moon guide, not is it a place of excessive plot details. This list fails WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Collectonian ( talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per article stubification, withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article is unencyclopaedic and out of context with its highly subjective title. There are concerns about possible copyright violation. The contents should properly be added to other articles created by the cricket project. The style, spelling, grammar and presentation of the article fall well below expected standards. It is frankly an embarrassment. See cleanup tags and talk page for further reasons to delete. JamesJJames ( talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Planned film to be released more than a year from now, nothing really known about it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dougie WII ( talk) 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I love this. Really. This is so a concept that needs a name. Too bad it's a neologism that's only defined in Urban Dictionary and has no real reliable sources to back it up. When it gets published in a major publication, we can restore the article. howcheng { chat} 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SorryGuy Talk 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The English adaptations of the anime and manga series Sailor Moon have no notability outside of the series. This article is almost entirely sourced from fan sites and sites that violate WP:COPYVIO, lacks neutrality and contains extensive OR and personal opinion. The English releases of the series are already covered with the appropriate detail in the main article, invalidating any claims that this is a "break out" or "spinout" that doesn't require notability. Collectonian ( talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
* Non-Western Sexuality Comes to the U.S.: A Crash Course in Manga and Anime for Sexologists. Author: Cornog, Martha; Perper, Timothy Journal: Contemporary Sexuality Pub.: 2005-03 Volume: 39
Issue: 3 Pages: 1(4) ISSN: 10945725
- GIRLS IN CARTOONS; Japan's Pioneers. Journal: New York Times (1/1/1985 to present) Pub.: 2000-09-24
Pages: 4(0) ISSN: 03624331
- A Challenge to Hollywood? Japanese Character Goods Hit the US. Author: Allison, Anne Journal: Japanese Studies Pub.: 2000-05 Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Pages: 67(22) ISSN: 10371397
- Pretty little girl warriors : a study of images of femininity in Japanese Sailor Moon comics /
Author: Browning, Sheila Rose.; Takeuchi, Naoko. Publication: 2004 Dissertation: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. Document: English : Book : Thesis/dissertation/manuscript Archival Material Archival Material Internet Resource Internet Resource
- Sailor moon and the Shojo-ization of male imagery / Author: Dvorak, Julianne Komori. Publication: 1997
Dissertation: Thesis (M.A. in Asian Studies)-- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1997.
- Warriors of legend : reflections of Japan in Sailor Moon (unauthorized) / Jay Navok; Sushil K Rudranath; Jonathan Mays 2005 2nd ed. English Book Book 147 p. : ill., maps ; 21 cm. North Charleston, S.C. : BookSurge, LLC, ; ISBN: 1419608142 9781419608148
- Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination / by Allison, Anne. English Book Book Internet Resource Internet Resource xxii, 332 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. Berkeley : University of California Press, ; ISBN: 0520221486 (cloth : alk. paper)
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete there is no indication that the redlink team for which this guy played was fully professional, and having articles like this with no more than an initial and surname played for such-and-such is not good for this encyclopedia. Where's the bio in this one liner? We don't know where or when he was born, whether he is still alive, what his life story is, or even his freaking first name. C'mon, this isn't a bio, it's a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY entry. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable organisation. PeterSymonds | talk 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the improvements in the article during the AFD show that the topic is legitimate and notable. Davewild ( talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete one-line apparent dicdef but sufficiently mangled I wouldn't wish it upon Wiktionary. Are we to expect identical articles of Fooians in non-Fooland for each and every Foo? No, let's stop this here and now. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete Even worse than it looks at first glance: "The Americans in Japan refer to
American-born
Japanese citizens in Japan." Apparently limited to persons who (a) have Japanese citizenship and who (b) happen to have been born in the United States. I agree with Carlos that this is opens the door to many more unnecessary articles of X-landers who were born in Y-land. Keep A much better article now than it was 24 hours ago.
Mandsford (
talk)
12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep looks like sufficient claim to notabilty at the first look so we close this as keep in the first instance to allow time to develop. Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about a game show with no indication that this show is aired anywhere etc. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn (apparently pick-up) baseball team. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G3 by Eliz81 ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Andreas (T) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about an organization that cannot be found on the internet. The text reads like a party joke. Andreas (T) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Witten in Greeklish. Andreas (T) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Pure how-to guide. (Disputed prod.) -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'Keep per sourcing in article, showing notability of this phenomenon. If any sources given via links here are not in the article already, please add them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. I searched 10 pages of Google results for "Car spotting" but could not find a reliable, independent source. Article has no sources currently. swa q 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article isn't teling the truth. It is just a page created by the person that wants this game. There are no references and no infos about this game. MR.CRO95 ( talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected Spartaz Humbug! 07:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn meditation center, essentially similar to a parish church which are routinely deleted... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Notability not established in independent, reliable sources. All sources, as pointed out below, are either COI or otherwise related to subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable failed parliamentary candidate, nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of other local politicians who fought an unsuccessful campaign in a general election, per WP:BIO#Politicians. I PRODded this article on 28 March, and it was deleted but then restored today at DRV.
Apart from his own website and other websites of his party, the only remotely substantial coverage of him include appears to be a mention in a BBC news report of the 2005 Conservative Party leadership election. I don't think that's anywhere near enough to meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", because the BBC report isn't really about Watkinson, it's about the party leaders. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I asked for this article to be undeleted this afternoon as the Gentleman in question is a senior businessman in Barnsley who is a Director of the Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber Of Commerce, and a director of the Barnsley Development agency - an extremly powerful body.
Although I do not wish to go into the "politics" of this - it seems that he is quite a senior member of the Conservative party (even though this might not be in a public elected position).
I agree that is seems that there is a possible COI, however even if he did write an article about himself it seems to be factual and balanced and has been upgraded by other users over a period of a couple of years - I fail to see why this has suddenly become an issue now.
BRChamber ( talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Well spotted! Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of commerce was created last year as a result of the merger of Barnsley Chamber of Commerce and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce - that's why you are not finding anything in your search. - Try Google search for Barnsley Chamber Of Commerceand you will get 904 returns - you might also find more information under BCCI (Barnsley Chamber Of Commerce & Industry)
I will try and update this article with some sources tomorrow for you.
BRChamber ( talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have now read the COI and don't feel as if there is any - especially as the COI refered to a biased article, which I don't believe that this is. However, in order to maintain neutrality, I have simply added references to the article and removed a broken external link, so that I cannot be accused of bias.
It is clear that you are hell bent on deleting this article, so I don't intend to add any more as I am just a lowly new user whilst you are an administrator - so it's likely to get deleted anyway.
BRChamber ( talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Ok - Point taken. Thanks for that Tikiwont. Perhaps I over reacted due to the tone of the previous commenter.
I still feel that the article is well balanced, factual and not making any exagerated claims about Mr Watkinson, and I still don't see why it's suddenly become an issue after being up for almost 2 years.
I also, from my point of view feel that it's useful to highlight senior members of the business community - I constantly refer to Wikipedia when I want some information on people that I'm meeting and find it a useful tool.
Perhaps the aricle should be moved to a different section rather than political since the majority of the article refers to Mr Watkinson's business and community commitments rather that his politcal bent (which I don't want to comment on anyway).
BRChamber ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've read the articles you suggested, and still disagree with you for the reasons that I've already stated.
But, hey - If it makes you feel good to go around deleting articles are are doing no harm to anyone then I suppose we've both had our say and I'll leave it up to another administrator to decide whether Mr W is notable enough.
BRChamber ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
First AfD was closed as delete, but many sources had been added near the end of the discussion. As a result I'm relisting it to see if this new version is notable. Procedural nom. Wizardman 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Slim consensus but the two sources added by Phil Bridger do not demonstrate notability, one being a bare name mention in a book, the other a single news story. Pigman ☿ 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This organization is not notable enough do deserve an article on Wikipedia. In a Google search, with the notable exception of an Forbes article about Karen I. Tse, all the 627 results are press-releases or other forms of self-promotion, posted in a variety of websites by people related to the organization. Wikipedia shouldn't be one more of these websites. Damiens.rf 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Article sources are improved. Pigman ☿ 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable music publication. No evidence of notability in the article. Only source is its own Myspace page. Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted: no notability was claimed. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable; Google search for her name turns up only sites that are self-published or are blatantly trying to advertise her; no third party sources covering her in a significant manner. Original nomination by User:Naerii as a prod but needed to go to AFD. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete CSD G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikel San José); deleted last February, nothing has changed since the page deletion. -- Angelo ( talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails the criteria at WP:FOOTYN as he has never played a professional game. No references or sources are listed to prove other notability. Eastlygod ( talk) 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep With the confirmation of the album title it is obvious this vote is heading towards keep, although I would have prefered more information. If any objections, it can be still discussed for a merge or deletion review. -- JForget 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources. All quoted sources are blogs, that seem to track back to one source: the unreliable www.tommy2.net. Kww ( talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - It has now been confirmed by Vanessa herself. Exclusive_474 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - As said before, it fails
WP:Music because their is no reliable sources reporting it --
Kanonkas :
Take Contact
18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable local Jesus camp for kids. Fails WP:N and WP:COI, since it was created by an account with the same name as the article. Qworty ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. In my mind, there's nothing uncontroversial about the PROD which was placed on the article, thus why I'm bringing this to AfD for consensus. The reason placed on the page by user Brandonbarr was: "This article was created by Riam4ever, which is a know pseudonym of the Brandon Barr in Redlands, CA, a fact that can be confirmed with a Google search of "Riam4ever" (ie: this article was written by its subject). This is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, this entry is without much substance or references, and is being used to further the career of Mr. Barr, while additionally causing confusion between this Brandon Barr and me--a writer, poet, and critic of the same name that has a longer history of publication." As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer ( talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is just a spam article created by the subject. Psykosonik ( talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page history. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per Wikipedia:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that independent, reliable sources establish the subject's notability. WilliamH ( talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly non notable. No references and several obvious vanity sections. Sapph42 ( talk) 11:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The result was keep. The subject is notable as the mother of a major celebrity, but that is totally seperate from her notability as a published musician and author. Keep. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Well i saw that bob marleys mother passed away, but instead of deleting the article i was thinking of having a merge to Bob Marley Under Family. What do you think? All thoughts are welcomed.-- Pookeo9 ( talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't delete. Instead, merge with Marley family page. There will be a lot of interesting bio articles all over the web that can be linked. She also had a singing career of her own, and was the matriarch of this very famous and large family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwgreen ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — Kwgreen ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
She deserves a page on her own, even if she is Bob Marley's mother. Just like Bob's wife would probably deserve a page because of her work in The We-Fives, and in raising Bob's legal children. I say legal, because Bob left descendants other than Ziggy, Rohan and their siblings. gtdanyelz -- 198.150.12.32 ( talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete DGG says it all really... Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
fails to meet notability guidlines Psykosonik ( talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
COMMENT I don't see a reason to remove this entry, the author is a legitimate writer, editor and artist. I have a book called The Starry Wisdom, a short story anthology of Lovecraft-inspired tales. Among the contributors- J G Ballard, William S Burroughs, Ramsey Campbell and Mike Philbin, Chimericana editor. You won't find any of his novels in a traditional small bookstore. This does not make the writing illegitimate. Just as there are great, unrecognized independent film makers, there are also great independent, unusual independent writers. His stories are everywhere, there are probably over a hundred on line. Mr. Philbin is a serious and dedicated writer- he is prolific, and the vast number of publications that have published his material is proof that he does have a following, is a legitimate artist, and that he has an uncompromising vision. About me- I won't pretend to be unbiased. Mike Philbin accepted stories by me for two of his anthologies, and I am grateful for that. I had submitted them to him because I was a fan of his writing and publications. But the fact that I am a fan of his writing has nothing to do with this post. I see no legitimate reason to remove this post. All I can think is that perhaps someone has a personal agenda, perhaps someone who had a story rejected for the Chimeraworld anthologies, and that this is more like a subtle harrassment than an attempt to clean up wikipedia. This entry is accurate. This entry belongs on Wikipdeia, and I would be glad to do whatever is possible to keep this entry up and preserve the integrity of Wikipdeia. Because if this is due to some personal agenda it does Wikipedia a disservice to take seriously claims that an entry is not legitimate simply because the author's radical writing and outspoken views have angered some. What is the criterion for deciding this page should be taken down? Davidltamarin ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research. While there are certainly atheists who consider themselves spiritual, there is no evidence offered that shows this is a term with established and significant usage. Indeed, it is a neologism by the author's own admission, and creation of this article appears to be part of a campaign by The Center for Spiritual Atheism to get the term recognized by dictionaries and other resources, and this "organization" appears to be little more than a website with no notability. The definition of the term is not supported by any reliable sources, and seems to refer to a type of Pantheism. There are references, but I know that at least one of them does not support the content--G.H. Smith's book does not list the term in its index, nor do I recall it ever addressing the subject. There are no in-line citations supporting any of the content, which appears to be purely original research. Nick Graves ( talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Autobiography of a musician. Is he notable? -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete I'm always dubious of allowing a wikiproject to dictate a notability guideline for subject areas that is seen to trump overall notability. The requirement is for multiple non-trivial independant coverage. This does not meet this and therefore gets kicked into touch. Just to be clear, match reports are not multiple reliable sources create. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Created by member of the club with no significant input from indeppendent editors. Unable to verify most of the content as there are no sources that go beyond trivial listings. Fails the notability guideline of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union - the team is at the second level of regional competition. dramatic ( talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The references provided apprear to be incidental. For this to survive we really need to see some proper sourcing for verifiability if nothing else. Otherwise, this looks like POV original research. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced boxing term. Was a proposed deletion, but has already been once deleted per Prod in the past and then recreated (which counts as contesting). Unless some good sources about such a concept can be found, it remains little more than a dictionary definition with an ill-defined list. Tikiwont ( talk) 10:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
[13], [14] Non-notable musician. Searching yields nothing substantial. This fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hindu (?) deity of unclear notability. The article focuses on that deity's family tree. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
If ref provided ,add the page to vishwakarmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.182.134 ( talk) 13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment The article reveal some appocripfas in hinduisam. Viswabrahmins had been always raising phylosophical and rational rebellion against convensional brahmanisam in India.The ancient social system denied a suitableforum to reveal these parallel stream of brahmanism.It should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.187.91 ( talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 05:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't see any real claim to notability here, like an actual role in a TV show Grahame ( talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Possibility of merging content elsewhere left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Attempts at both a redirect and a prod were apparently removed by the author of the page. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual per WP:NOT#HOWTO. J Readings ( talk) 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Attempts at a prod first was removed by the original author of the page. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual per WP:NOT#HOWTO. J Readings ( talk) 07:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and contents of talk page or WP:CSD#G3 as made up nonsense. Pedro : Chat 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prom3th3an ( talk) 07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:CSD#A7. Salting, since this is the fourth deletion of this page. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-overturned speedy after claims of notability. But they don't seem notable (i.e., fails WP:BIO. Notability is not usually inherited from parents, there are high-achieving students at every school, cites of involvement in major projects aren't specific enough to evaluate level of participation, etc. DMacks ( talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article does not cite any sources whatsoever, and it has been tagged as such for quite some time. RobertM525 ( talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
unreferenced}}
tag has been on this article for over six months. And right now despite your assertion otherwise, there is not one reference given on the article to verify it's notability.
SunCreator (
talk)
Comment for new voters. Please note that the references were added only after the article was nominated, so the initial concern was legitimate; only IMO it should have been addressed in a different way. `' Míkka >t 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A gushing bio but only one of the external links mentions the woman. One solution might be to move the article to West Tennessee Youth Chorus and change it appropriately. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging content or redirecting the title elsewhere is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Highway is not on the system, according to the NDOR official site. Dbm11085 ( talk) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki ( talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A quick google search does not turn up anything but a frat boy, which is who I suspect this is. Aiden Fisher ( talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
http://spectrum.buffalo.edu/article.php?id=32850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.128.156 ( talk) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Event with questionable notability. Dougie WII ( talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD. WP:SOAP issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing. Sandstein ( talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Definitely
WP:SOAP, with questionable
WP:N and
WP:SOURCES issues.
Beidabaozi (
talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ATP
Beidabaozi (
talk)
06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
comment to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are not articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a WP:COATRACK; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in reliable sources. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a long winded advertisement for an ebook (mentioned at the end). The airline itself, to my knowledge, never flew (though there IS an Indian carrier with the same name, it is certainly not the airline mentioned in this article), and the most I could find out about it was a bunch of pr announcements and a couple of mentions in various magazines (whom all mention that it will fly in THE FUTURE, not that it ever really flew). Do we really need to catalog every failed business idea? SiberioS ( talk) 03:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
https://www.instagram.com/indigo.6e/
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Black Kite 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely aggressive WP:Single-purpose account that keeps edit warring to delete the WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:N tags left by other editors. The article fails WP:BIO generally and WP:ATHLETE specifically. Google hits for his pseudonym, "DrHeLpErZx," are only 56 [24], and none of them WP:RS. Under his actual name, he does even worse, with only 8 Google hits [25], and none of them WP:RS. Delete, and then salt vigorously if recreated. Qworty ( talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and move (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that article cleanup and moving it to List of basic tort law topics is appropriate action, per Wikipedia:SNOW of Celarnor's proposal. WilliamH ( talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A "glossary of terms" article. Multiple fork of existing articles. Smells like a copyvio. At best should be reduced to a "list of tort topics" with links to separate articles. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. What has been brought up as possible sources to warrant an article on this book, has been found insufficient. Tikiwont ( talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-published book by author with “law degree” from unaccredited “law school”; no discernable previously published third party references to the book have been located that would signify notability for the book, and book fails to meet criteria for notability for books listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Criteria Famspear ( talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Nominator comment: OK, based on what I've looked at, I will now assume that Starwalk3r was indeed trying to say that the site I linked (the skeptic site) is not really a site for the "Universal Life University School of Law," but might actually be a site trying to discredit the Universal Life University School of Law. And I see now that Starwalk3r might be right about that. I don't know about the site that editor Sheffield Steel linked to. Nevertheless, score one point for Starwalk3r! Now, the request to Starwalk3r is reiterated: Please show how the book, Pied Pipers of Babylon, is notable -- using the Wikipedia rules for notability. Famspear ( talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep (duplicate deleted) Comment by article's creator: Yes Famspear I was referring to the site, not the user who posted the site in regards to the website of the university being a fake to discredit the author. The only nobility I have been able to find was that of a review which was included as a photocopy in my copy of the book I had purchased and was from an independent source which apparently, according to Wikipedia (Circulation of The Spotlight peaked in the early 1980s at around 200,000, when it was the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States.
[34]), had an audience with "the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States". As for me being the author, that doesnt even make sense. I am in Canada and the author by now, if still alive, is in his 80s and is an American. So due to the age of this book being 23 years old, and at the time of its publishing, the information was well over 20 years ahead of its time, and since the review at the time was provided by an independent publication who's critical commentary was non-trivial and goes "past a simple plot summary"(This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.
[35]) and due to the lack of technology at the time of its publishing, archive records of multiple reviews are not within arms reach and easily attainable. I believe that this one review from the spotlight is just proof for nobility.
Starwalk3r (
talk) 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Starwalk3r (
talk •
contribs)
02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete for the third time. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place to add cheat codes for games. Captain panda 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Um....a neolgism, per WP:NEO, no additional content beyond a definition. ukexpat ( talk) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject appears to be either a hoax or a misidentification of the organism Stanley011 ( talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as G1 (patent nonsense) by Orangemike ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Personal essay; no ghits except a user page and wikirage. Trovatore ( talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Revert to unvandalized version. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability - I am unable to find other references to this Michael Goldman, this page seems to suffer from serious notability problems. Nicwright ( talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is useless. There are already articles on the isotopes of each element, as well as table of nuclides. It's unlikely that anyone would actually want to use a list in this form, even if it were completed. The way, the truth, and the light ( talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep given absence of delete preferences and effective withdrawal of the nomination (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible advert created by company employee. Creator is at least honest about this possible conflict of interest. Originally tagged for speedy when it consisted of mostly links, but now I'm less sure. Google does provide some evidence to support the 'leading producer' claim BrucePodger ( talk) 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N Rk OR To N 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD'ed, does not assert notability. Shawnc ( talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, possibly OR, extremely broad inclusion criteria, and works better as a system of categories, which we I believe we already have. Mr. Z-man 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result was keep. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is just an article about a radio show that is not very known. Sounds as an advertisement. Damiens.rf 23:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod of "No assertion of notability. Looks like a non-notable instant messenger program." removed with comment "I don't believe that this article should be deleted as this instant messenger will soon be released to the general public and will be updated on a regular basis" by User:Trebor678. Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
"
The result was Deleted (non-admin closure), Speedied by Discospinster. Bfigura ( talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)" reply
Sounds like a hoax to me, no sources, etc... Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Its a person. Its a persons page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Careyprice221 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Article needs a better structure, but consensus is that notability guidelines are met.-- Kubigula ( talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Originally listed for Speedy, non-notable book, unsourced, fails WP:BK Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 23:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here is the reference for When Nothing Else Matters by Michael Leahy. [1]
You can also find information about it on Simon and Schuster's website [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodtimesroll8 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per unanimity of respondents (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 23:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is no more than just an advertisement for a recent (2008!) non-notable book (by a on-notable author). We shouldn't allow this kind of articles on Wikipedia. Damiens.rf 22:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: To become less of an advertisement and more like a real article, the article should focus on why is the book important (is it influential? polemical? expected?) and less in describing the book's contents. The current book analysis in the article is original research, since it's based on the book itself, and not on secondary sources. But still we have to determine which of the 5 criterion on Wikipedia:Notability (books) apply to this book ( "1" is borderline). -- Damiens.rf 20:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 02:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete--Publication fails wikipedia's notability guidelines, as a simple google search will reveal. Stanley011 ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. There is no way this article is going to get deleted, as the artist is extremely well known, although it does need some attention. Ty 10:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Biography of a living person with no references or assertion of notability. Sole external link seemingly is subject's own page. Hellno2 ( talk) 22:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a blatant hoax. Dloh cierekim 22:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparent hoax. The linked Federal Security Agency was reorganized into the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1949. The single reference is busted. Homeland Security and no mention of the OAS. — Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Article has been improved during the discussion, and later comments are all to keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 14:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It was speedily deleted once, recreated, but kept after the second CSD tag was placed. There's very little notability here, and the fact that she was the daughter of X it doesn't automatically make her notable. I've waited on this for quite a while, but the article hasn't changed since the speedy, and I can't find much on her at all. PeterSymonds | talk 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7 no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if this is a hoax or not, but Google is completely unaware that this person was in any of the movies listed. Rnb ( talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to
Wichita Falls Independent School District.
Camaron | Chris
(talk)
12:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
No notability asserted for a middle school. Frog47 ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's favorite Cookie 20:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod was removed twice, no real name, no citations. Fails WP:BIO Athlete. Govvy ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Scarface (1983 film). Rudget 17:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Where do I begin? I was very surprised not to find a speedy category that applied to this article. No assertion of notability. No reliable sources. Article was prodded and the prod removed by the editor who created it without making any substantial improvements. I favor quick deletion per WP:SNOW. Steven J. Anderson ( talk) 20:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Phoenix - wiki 21:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable local radio show. The only references here are to instances where the show was cancelled. Article doesn't make it clear how this show is notable. Rtphokie ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G4 by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article doesn't establish notability. A similar article, "Tour de G'ville" was speedy deleted 03:50, 20 February 2008 as A7. Db-A7 was denied here, but article hasn't improved substantially since February. Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to California Institute of the Arts. Walton One 18:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged as questionable notability for 11 months without any substantial improvement. All references found in a reasonable search were about individuals at the institution, not the institution itself. Pastordavid ( talk) 20:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 02:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to meet music notability standards for a band. Article was replaced after CSD A7 deletion [7]. Dougie WII ( talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Davis School District -- JForget 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-line article about a nn middle school Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Walton One 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary and unnotable list of voice actors for Sailor Moon. This information is already included in the individual character articles and the list of minor characters. A standalone list is unnecessary and Wikipedia is not a directory of voice actors in a series. Collectonian ( talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep List seems to have detailed content that would convolute the
Sailor Moon article. Most of the entries have an article associated with them and is appears to be a valuable collection and quick reference to all the voices that are used for these characters. Seems to pass
WP:N and
WP:V. Good enough for me. --
Pmedema (
talk) 19:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)* - Delete as per TheFarix's comment below. --
Pmedema (
talk)
15:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. Wikiacc ( ¶) 17:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable list of locations in Sailor Moon, barely sourced and what is sourced comes from a handful of primary sources. The rest is filled with plot details and personal opinions/suppositions/theories. No real-world notability of any of these locations, and what relevance they have to the plot is covered simply by mentioning them in the relevant context. Wikipedia is not a Sailor Moon guide, not is it a place of excessive plot details. This list fails WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Collectonian ( talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per article stubification, withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. The article is unencyclopaedic and out of context with its highly subjective title. There are concerns about possible copyright violation. The contents should properly be added to other articles created by the cricket project. The style, spelling, grammar and presentation of the article fall well below expected standards. It is frankly an embarrassment. See cleanup tags and talk page for further reasons to delete. JamesJJames ( talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Planned film to be released more than a year from now, nothing really known about it. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dougie WII ( talk) 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I love this. Really. This is so a concept that needs a name. Too bad it's a neologism that's only defined in Urban Dictionary and has no real reliable sources to back it up. When it gets published in a major publication, we can restore the article. howcheng { chat} 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. SorryGuy Talk 18:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The English adaptations of the anime and manga series Sailor Moon have no notability outside of the series. This article is almost entirely sourced from fan sites and sites that violate WP:COPYVIO, lacks neutrality and contains extensive OR and personal opinion. The English releases of the series are already covered with the appropriate detail in the main article, invalidating any claims that this is a "break out" or "spinout" that doesn't require notability. Collectonian ( talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
* Non-Western Sexuality Comes to the U.S.: A Crash Course in Manga and Anime for Sexologists. Author: Cornog, Martha; Perper, Timothy Journal: Contemporary Sexuality Pub.: 2005-03 Volume: 39
Issue: 3 Pages: 1(4) ISSN: 10945725
- GIRLS IN CARTOONS; Japan's Pioneers. Journal: New York Times (1/1/1985 to present) Pub.: 2000-09-24
Pages: 4(0) ISSN: 03624331
- A Challenge to Hollywood? Japanese Character Goods Hit the US. Author: Allison, Anne Journal: Japanese Studies Pub.: 2000-05 Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Pages: 67(22) ISSN: 10371397
- Pretty little girl warriors : a study of images of femininity in Japanese Sailor Moon comics /
Author: Browning, Sheila Rose.; Takeuchi, Naoko. Publication: 2004 Dissertation: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. Document: English : Book : Thesis/dissertation/manuscript Archival Material Archival Material Internet Resource Internet Resource
- Sailor moon and the Shojo-ization of male imagery / Author: Dvorak, Julianne Komori. Publication: 1997
Dissertation: Thesis (M.A. in Asian Studies)-- University of California, Berkeley, Dec. 1997.
- Warriors of legend : reflections of Japan in Sailor Moon (unauthorized) / Jay Navok; Sushil K Rudranath; Jonathan Mays 2005 2nd ed. English Book Book 147 p. : ill., maps ; 21 cm. North Charleston, S.C. : BookSurge, LLC, ; ISBN: 1419608142 9781419608148
- Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination / by Allison, Anne. English Book Book Internet Resource Internet Resource xxii, 332 p. : ill. ; 23 cm. Berkeley : University of California Press, ; ISBN: 0520221486 (cloth : alk. paper)
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete there is no indication that the redlink team for which this guy played was fully professional, and having articles like this with no more than an initial and surname played for such-and-such is not good for this encyclopedia. Where's the bio in this one liner? We don't know where or when he was born, whether he is still alive, what his life story is, or even his freaking first name. C'mon, this isn't a bio, it's a WP:NOT#DIRECTORY entry. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable organisation. PeterSymonds | talk 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the improvements in the article during the AFD show that the topic is legitimate and notable. Davewild ( talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete one-line apparent dicdef but sufficiently mangled I wouldn't wish it upon Wiktionary. Are we to expect identical articles of Fooians in non-Fooland for each and every Foo? No, let's stop this here and now. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete Even worse than it looks at first glance: "The Americans in Japan refer to
American-born
Japanese citizens in Japan." Apparently limited to persons who (a) have Japanese citizenship and who (b) happen to have been born in the United States. I agree with Carlos that this is opens the door to many more unnecessary articles of X-landers who were born in Y-land. Keep A much better article now than it was 24 hours ago.
Mandsford (
talk)
12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep looks like sufficient claim to notabilty at the first look so we close this as keep in the first instance to allow time to develop. Spartaz Humbug! 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced oneliner about a game show with no indication that this show is aired anywhere etc. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn (apparently pick-up) baseball team. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G3 by Eliz81 ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 09:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Andreas (T) 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about an organization that cannot be found on the internet. The text reads like a party joke. Andreas (T) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Witten in Greeklish. Andreas (T) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Pure how-to guide. (Disputed prod.) -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'Keep per sourcing in article, showing notability of this phenomenon. If any sources given via links here are not in the article already, please add them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability. I searched 10 pages of Google results for "Car spotting" but could not find a reliable, independent source. Article has no sources currently. swa q 17:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article isn't teling the truth. It is just a page created by the person that wants this game. There are no references and no infos about this game. MR.CRO95 ( talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected Spartaz Humbug! 07:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn meditation center, essentially similar to a parish church which are routinely deleted... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 17:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Notability not established in independent, reliable sources. All sources, as pointed out below, are either COI or otherwise related to subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable failed parliamentary candidate, nothing to distinguish him from hundreds of other local politicians who fought an unsuccessful campaign in a general election, per WP:BIO#Politicians. I PRODded this article on 28 March, and it was deleted but then restored today at DRV.
Apart from his own website and other websites of his party, the only remotely substantial coverage of him include appears to be a mention in a BBC news report of the 2005 Conservative Party leadership election. I don't think that's anywhere near enough to meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", because the BBC report isn't really about Watkinson, it's about the party leaders. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I asked for this article to be undeleted this afternoon as the Gentleman in question is a senior businessman in Barnsley who is a Director of the Barnsley & Rotherham Chamber Of Commerce, and a director of the Barnsley Development agency - an extremly powerful body.
Although I do not wish to go into the "politics" of this - it seems that he is quite a senior member of the Conservative party (even though this might not be in a public elected position).
I agree that is seems that there is a possible COI, however even if he did write an article about himself it seems to be factual and balanced and has been upgraded by other users over a period of a couple of years - I fail to see why this has suddenly become an issue now.
BRChamber ( talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Well spotted! Barnsley and Rotherham Chamber of commerce was created last year as a result of the merger of Barnsley Chamber of Commerce and Rotherham Chamber of Commerce - that's why you are not finding anything in your search. - Try Google search for Barnsley Chamber Of Commerceand you will get 904 returns - you might also find more information under BCCI (Barnsley Chamber Of Commerce & Industry)
I will try and update this article with some sources tomorrow for you.
BRChamber ( talk) 00:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I have now read the COI and don't feel as if there is any - especially as the COI refered to a biased article, which I don't believe that this is. However, in order to maintain neutrality, I have simply added references to the article and removed a broken external link, so that I cannot be accused of bias.
It is clear that you are hell bent on deleting this article, so I don't intend to add any more as I am just a lowly new user whilst you are an administrator - so it's likely to get deleted anyway.
BRChamber ( talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Ok - Point taken. Thanks for that Tikiwont. Perhaps I over reacted due to the tone of the previous commenter.
I still feel that the article is well balanced, factual and not making any exagerated claims about Mr Watkinson, and I still don't see why it's suddenly become an issue after being up for almost 2 years.
I also, from my point of view feel that it's useful to highlight senior members of the business community - I constantly refer to Wikipedia when I want some information on people that I'm meeting and find it a useful tool.
Perhaps the aricle should be moved to a different section rather than political since the majority of the article refers to Mr Watkinson's business and community commitments rather that his politcal bent (which I don't want to comment on anyway).
BRChamber ( talk) 12:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've read the articles you suggested, and still disagree with you for the reasons that I've already stated.
But, hey - If it makes you feel good to go around deleting articles are are doing no harm to anyone then I suppose we've both had our say and I'll leave it up to another administrator to decide whether Mr W is notable enough.
BRChamber ( talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
First AfD was closed as delete, but many sources had been added near the end of the discussion. As a result I'm relisting it to see if this new version is notable. Procedural nom. Wizardman 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Slim consensus but the two sources added by Phil Bridger do not demonstrate notability, one being a bare name mention in a book, the other a single news story. Pigman ☿ 06:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This organization is not notable enough do deserve an article on Wikipedia. In a Google search, with the notable exception of an Forbes article about Karen I. Tse, all the 627 results are press-releases or other forms of self-promotion, posted in a variety of websites by people related to the organization. Wikipedia shouldn't be one more of these websites. Damiens.rf 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Espresso Addict ( talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails third party reliable source. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 23:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Article sources are improved. Pigman ☿ 05:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable music publication. No evidence of notability in the article. Only source is its own Myspace page. Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted: no notability was claimed. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable; Google search for her name turns up only sites that are self-published or are blatantly trying to advertise her; no third party sources covering her in a significant manner. Original nomination by User:Naerii as a prod but needed to go to AFD. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete CSD G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikel San José); deleted last February, nothing has changed since the page deletion. -- Angelo ( talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails the criteria at WP:FOOTYN as he has never played a professional game. No references or sources are listed to prove other notability. Eastlygod ( talk) 14:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep With the confirmation of the album title it is obvious this vote is heading towards keep, although I would have prefered more information. If any objections, it can be still discussed for a merge or deletion review. -- JForget 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources. All quoted sources are blogs, that seem to track back to one source: the unreliable www.tommy2.net. Kww ( talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - It has now been confirmed by Vanessa herself. Exclusive_474 15:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - As said before, it fails
WP:Music because their is no reliable sources reporting it --
Kanonkas :
Take Contact
18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable local Jesus camp for kids. Fails WP:N and WP:COI, since it was created by an account with the same name as the article. Qworty ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Procedural nom. In my mind, there's nothing uncontroversial about the PROD which was placed on the article, thus why I'm bringing this to AfD for consensus. The reason placed on the page by user Brandonbarr was: "This article was created by Riam4ever, which is a know pseudonym of the Brandon Barr in Redlands, CA, a fact that can be confirmed with a Google search of "Riam4ever" (ie: this article was written by its subject). This is a clear conflict of interest. Additionally, this entry is without much substance or references, and is being used to further the career of Mr. Barr, while additionally causing confusion between this Brandon Barr and me--a writer, poet, and critic of the same name that has a longer history of publication." As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral at this time. Redfarmer ( talk) 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is just a spam article created by the subject. Psykosonik ( talk · contribs) Text copied from article talk page history. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per Wikipedia:SNOW (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that independent, reliable sources establish the subject's notability. WilliamH ( talk) 01:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Clearly non notable. No references and several obvious vanity sections. Sapph42 ( talk) 11:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The result was keep. The subject is notable as the mother of a major celebrity, but that is totally seperate from her notability as a published musician and author. Keep. Lawrence Cohen § t/ e 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Well i saw that bob marleys mother passed away, but instead of deleting the article i was thinking of having a merge to Bob Marley Under Family. What do you think? All thoughts are welcomed.-- Pookeo9 ( talk) 21:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't delete. Instead, merge with Marley family page. There will be a lot of interesting bio articles all over the web that can be linked. She also had a singing career of her own, and was the matriarch of this very famous and large family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwgreen ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC) — Kwgreen ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
She deserves a page on her own, even if she is Bob Marley's mother. Just like Bob's wife would probably deserve a page because of her work in The We-Fives, and in raising Bob's legal children. I say legal, because Bob left descendants other than Ziggy, Rohan and their siblings. gtdanyelz -- 198.150.12.32 ( talk) 22:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete DGG says it all really... Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
fails to meet notability guidlines Psykosonik ( talk) 13:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
COMMENT I don't see a reason to remove this entry, the author is a legitimate writer, editor and artist. I have a book called The Starry Wisdom, a short story anthology of Lovecraft-inspired tales. Among the contributors- J G Ballard, William S Burroughs, Ramsey Campbell and Mike Philbin, Chimericana editor. You won't find any of his novels in a traditional small bookstore. This does not make the writing illegitimate. Just as there are great, unrecognized independent film makers, there are also great independent, unusual independent writers. His stories are everywhere, there are probably over a hundred on line. Mr. Philbin is a serious and dedicated writer- he is prolific, and the vast number of publications that have published his material is proof that he does have a following, is a legitimate artist, and that he has an uncompromising vision. About me- I won't pretend to be unbiased. Mike Philbin accepted stories by me for two of his anthologies, and I am grateful for that. I had submitted them to him because I was a fan of his writing and publications. But the fact that I am a fan of his writing has nothing to do with this post. I see no legitimate reason to remove this post. All I can think is that perhaps someone has a personal agenda, perhaps someone who had a story rejected for the Chimeraworld anthologies, and that this is more like a subtle harrassment than an attempt to clean up wikipedia. This entry is accurate. This entry belongs on Wikipdeia, and I would be glad to do whatever is possible to keep this entry up and preserve the integrity of Wikipdeia. Because if this is due to some personal agenda it does Wikipedia a disservice to take seriously claims that an entry is not legitimate simply because the author's radical writing and outspoken views have angered some. What is the criterion for deciding this page should be taken down? Davidltamarin ( talk) 14:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 20:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism, original research. While there are certainly atheists who consider themselves spiritual, there is no evidence offered that shows this is a term with established and significant usage. Indeed, it is a neologism by the author's own admission, and creation of this article appears to be part of a campaign by The Center for Spiritual Atheism to get the term recognized by dictionaries and other resources, and this "organization" appears to be little more than a website with no notability. The definition of the term is not supported by any reliable sources, and seems to refer to a type of Pantheism. There are references, but I know that at least one of them does not support the content--G.H. Smith's book does not list the term in its index, nor do I recall it ever addressing the subject. There are no in-line citations supporting any of the content, which appears to be purely original research. Nick Graves ( talk) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Autobiography of a musician. Is he notable? -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete I'm always dubious of allowing a wikiproject to dictate a notability guideline for subject areas that is seen to trump overall notability. The requirement is for multiple non-trivial independant coverage. This does not meet this and therefore gets kicked into touch. Just to be clear, match reports are not multiple reliable sources create. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Created by member of the club with no significant input from indeppendent editors. Unable to verify most of the content as there are no sources that go beyond trivial listings. Fails the notability guideline of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union - the team is at the second level of regional competition. dramatic ( talk) 10:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete The references provided apprear to be incidental. For this to survive we really need to see some proper sourcing for verifiability if nothing else. Otherwise, this looks like POV original research. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced boxing term. Was a proposed deletion, but has already been once deleted per Prod in the past and then recreated (which counts as contesting). Unless some good sources about such a concept can be found, it remains little more than a dictionary definition with an ill-defined list. Tikiwont ( talk) 10:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
[13], [14] Non-notable musician. Searching yields nothing substantial. This fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 04:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected Spartaz Humbug! 06:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hindu (?) deity of unclear notability. The article focuses on that deity's family tree. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 10:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply
If ref provided ,add the page to vishwakarmas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.182.134 ( talk) 13:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment The article reveal some appocripfas in hinduisam. Viswabrahmins had been always raising phylosophical and rational rebellion against convensional brahmanisam in India.The ancient social system denied a suitableforum to reveal these parallel stream of brahmanism.It should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.187.91 ( talk) 14:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Pigman ☿ 05:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't see any real claim to notability here, like an actual role in a TV show Grahame ( talk) 08:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). Possibility of merging content elsewhere left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Attempts at both a redirect and a prod were apparently removed by the author of the page. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual per WP:NOT#HOWTO. J Readings ( talk) 07:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 14:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Attempts at a prod first was removed by the original author of the page. Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual per WP:NOT#HOWTO. J Readings ( talk) 07:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 and contents of talk page or WP:CSD#G3 as made up nonsense. Pedro : Chat 08:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Prom3th3an ( talk) 07:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per WP:CSD#A7. Salting, since this is the fourth deletion of this page. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-overturned speedy after claims of notability. But they don't seem notable (i.e., fails WP:BIO. Notability is not usually inherited from parents, there are high-achieving students at every school, cites of involvement in major projects aren't specific enough to evaluate level of participation, etc. DMacks ( talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article does not cite any sources whatsoever, and it has been tagged as such for quite some time. RobertM525 ( talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
unreferenced}}
tag has been on this article for over six months. And right now despite your assertion otherwise, there is not one reference given on the article to verify it's notability.
SunCreator (
talk)
Comment for new voters. Please note that the references were added only after the article was nominated, so the initial concern was legitimate; only IMO it should have been addressed in a different way. `' Míkka >t 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A gushing bio but only one of the external links mentions the woman. One solution might be to move the article to West Tennessee Youth Chorus and change it appropriately. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 04:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging content or redirecting the title elsewhere is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Highway is not on the system, according to the NDOR official site. Dbm11085 ( talk) 04:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki ( talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A quick google search does not turn up anything but a frat boy, which is who I suspect this is. Aiden Fisher ( talk) 04:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
http://spectrum.buffalo.edu/article.php?id=32850 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.128.156 ( talk) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 03:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Event with questionable notability. Dougie WII ( talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD. WP:SOAP issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing. Sandstein ( talk) 20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Definitely
WP:SOAP, with questionable
WP:N and
WP:SOURCES issues.
Beidabaozi (
talk) 03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:ATP
Beidabaozi (
talk)
06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
comment to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are not articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a WP:COATRACK; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in reliable sources. -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is essentially a long winded advertisement for an ebook (mentioned at the end). The airline itself, to my knowledge, never flew (though there IS an Indian carrier with the same name, it is certainly not the airline mentioned in this article), and the most I could find out about it was a bunch of pr announcements and a couple of mentions in various magazines (whom all mention that it will fly in THE FUTURE, not that it ever really flew). Do we really need to catalog every failed business idea? SiberioS ( talk) 03:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
https://www.instagram.com/indigo.6e/
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Black Kite 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Extremely aggressive WP:Single-purpose account that keeps edit warring to delete the WP:COI, WP:AUTO, and WP:N tags left by other editors. The article fails WP:BIO generally and WP:ATHLETE specifically. Google hits for his pseudonym, "DrHeLpErZx," are only 56 [24], and none of them WP:RS. Under his actual name, he does even worse, with only 8 Google hits [25], and none of them WP:RS. Delete, and then salt vigorously if recreated. Qworty ( talk) 03:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and move (non-admin closure). Consensus forms that article cleanup and moving it to List of basic tort law topics is appropriate action, per Wikipedia:SNOW of Celarnor's proposal. WilliamH ( talk) 01:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
A "glossary of terms" article. Multiple fork of existing articles. Smells like a copyvio. At best should be reduced to a "list of tort topics" with links to separate articles. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 02:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. What has been brought up as possible sources to warrant an article on this book, has been found insufficient. Tikiwont ( talk) 19:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Self-published book by author with “law degree” from unaccredited “law school”; no discernable previously published third party references to the book have been located that would signify notability for the book, and book fails to meet criteria for notability for books listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29#Criteria Famspear ( talk) 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Nominator comment: OK, based on what I've looked at, I will now assume that Starwalk3r was indeed trying to say that the site I linked (the skeptic site) is not really a site for the "Universal Life University School of Law," but might actually be a site trying to discredit the Universal Life University School of Law. And I see now that Starwalk3r might be right about that. I don't know about the site that editor Sheffield Steel linked to. Nevertheless, score one point for Starwalk3r! Now, the request to Starwalk3r is reiterated: Please show how the book, Pied Pipers of Babylon, is notable -- using the Wikipedia rules for notability. Famspear ( talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep (duplicate deleted) Comment by article's creator: Yes Famspear I was referring to the site, not the user who posted the site in regards to the website of the university being a fake to discredit the author. The only nobility I have been able to find was that of a review which was included as a photocopy in my copy of the book I had purchased and was from an independent source which apparently, according to Wikipedia (Circulation of The Spotlight peaked in the early 1980s at around 200,000, when it was the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States.
[34]), had an audience with "the largest-circulation periodical on the far right in the United States". As for me being the author, that doesnt even make sense. I am in Canada and the author by now, if still alive, is in his 80s and is an American. So due to the age of this book being 23 years old, and at the time of its publishing, the information was well over 20 years ahead of its time, and since the review at the time was provided by an independent publication who's critical commentary was non-trivial and goes "past a simple plot summary"(This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews.
[35]) and due to the lack of technology at the time of its publishing, archive records of multiple reviews are not within arms reach and easily attainable. I believe that this one review from the spotlight is just proof for nobility.
Starwalk3r (
talk) 01:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Starwalk3r (
talk •
contribs)
02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedy delete for the third time. Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 03:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place to add cheat codes for games. Captain panda 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Um....a neolgism, per WP:NEO, no additional content beyond a definition. ukexpat ( talk) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject appears to be either a hoax or a misidentification of the organism Stanley011 ( talk) 01:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deleted as G1 (patent nonsense) by Orangemike ( talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Personal essay; no ghits except a user page and wikirage. Trovatore ( talk) 01:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Revert to unvandalized version. NawlinWiki ( talk) 02:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability - I am unable to find other references to this Michael Goldman, this page seems to suffer from serious notability problems. Nicwright ( talk) 01:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is useless. There are already articles on the isotopes of each element, as well as table of nuclides. It's unlikely that anyone would actually want to use a list in this form, even if it were completed. The way, the truth, and the light ( talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep given absence of delete preferences and effective withdrawal of the nomination (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible advert created by company employee. Creator is at least honest about this possible conflict of interest. Originally tagged for speedy when it consisted of mostly links, but now I'm less sure. Google does provide some evidence to support the 'leading producer' claim BrucePodger ( talk) 00:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:N Rk OR To N 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD'ed, does not assert notability. Shawnc ( talk) 00:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 21:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced, possibly OR, extremely broad inclusion criteria, and works better as a system of categories, which we I believe we already have. Mr. Z-man 00:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) reply
(UTC)