The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
CycloneNimrod talk? 17:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn, consensus for keep. Non-admin closure. victor falk 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article does not adequately establish notability through its sources, and consists mainly of gamecruft and other content unsuitable in an article, such as overly-elaborate details and trivia. Furthermore, the game articles for the series are enough to describe the characters and plot, a separate plot-only article is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and since this article appears to be little else, it does not belong. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. . - Philippe 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about comedic fandubs of anime. While we've deleted article individual series of this type ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto: the abridged series and the countless variations of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series), this article is about the concept of a whole. Unfortunately, it still doesn't meet the notability and verifiability guidelines. By "not notable", this means that the idea of an "abridged series" has yet to be covered in-depth by a newspaper, magazine, scholarly journal, peer-reviewed thesis or other reliable, fact-checked sources. Google hits, YouTube views, or number of people on blogs or forums talking about it are not reliable sources. A search through EbscoHost found absoltely nothing for "abridged series" or "abridged anime", and the idea (as far as I know) has yet to be covered in a newspaper, magazine or other fact-checked sources. The "references" on this page are just a link to the homepage of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series and a entry on that series in a Yu-Gi-Oh! wiki, neither of which fit into the reliable source defition. Note that we've also deleted an article on this type of series before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abridged Series. Ultimately, this idea, while I'm sure is funny to quite a lot of people, doesn't meet our verifiability and notability guidelines. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle ( talk) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on a non-notable person. A Google search on "Walter Laybourne" [1] renders just 20 hits, none of them an independent tertiary source, most of them actually this page or other wiki pages. Article was prodded, but prod tag removed without explanation and article not improved to establish notability. Crusio ( talk) 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unless notable third party coverage can be found. Insearchofintelligentlife ( talk) 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastordavid ( talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; reason given for prod was "Non-notable self-published (lulu press) author." Sources not present, establishing lack of non-notability, and the contested reason given in the edit summary, "Author's website is yet to be complete and published articles have recently been written, though not yet published.", doesn't mesh well with the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Likely doesn't meet the notability guidelines. There were no references provided, either. A google search reveals nothing that would make this person notable. Also, there was no hits for news. Crazy Boris with a red beard ( talk) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an edit of the previously existing Ian Devine page with more information and an expanded biography. That was not listed for deletion. He is a musician of some renown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COBRPINDAR ( talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 14:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
questionable notability, article for band doesn't even exist Crazy Boris with a red beard ( talk) 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G12 by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, but the state of the text asks for a proper debate. Crazy Boris with a red beard ( talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm sure the Scottish Masonic lodge was right to conclude she was a nice woman, worthy of acclaim, but I wikipedia may wish to take another view. Unreferenced and not notable "lady of distinction" Docg 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; without prejudice to recreation if properly sourced. - Philippe 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This manga seems non-notable due to lack of independent coverage. PROD was contested with comment: "There are 3 volumes out. I need to assert why this series is notable" Now being published in 3 volumes is not an assertion of notability, at least not a valid one per WP:BOOK. Article had been tagged with {{ notability}} for about one year. B. Wolterding ( talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Why would this computer monitor pass WP:PRODUCT? PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding ( talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7/G11. Stifle ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Gaming platform. A google search for "Garena" and "gaming platform" disagrees with the claim of "millions of players around the world", producing just 42 unique hits. Article does not provide any sources other than its own official website. Roleplayer ( talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
i don't said milion people connect at once ... i said (long number) User ID on there ... give my page back ... some time gamer can made several id , also as player come , some of player go ... Write all of them ,or back to me , or give me better reason on my e-mail not this **** , or i'll ruin several good :'( ,this is 4-5 times that it deleted becuz of your hard web site ,and now you :'( it take several hours of my time each day , and u delete that so easily ... :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadManN ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted by User:Discospinster as A7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t• c 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Biography on a person with no real significance. CycloneNimrod talk? 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike as G7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t• c 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Spam, article creator has removed the speedy tag three times Frog47 ( talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, reason was "notability - fails wp:academic". Autobiography whose prod tag was removed without explanation by author/subject. -- Finngall talk 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete Agree per Nsk92. He may be notable someday but not today.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Per nom.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. I'm going to leave the article history intact so that someone can merge if they feel strongly. - Philippe 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political activist from Northern Ireland. The article contains two assertions of notability:
The article has no references, but lists two external links. One is a [dead link], and the other is just correspondence on the letters page of an obscure publication. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced dictionary-term type article for a non-notable phrase that is simply a description (and a rather "duh" one at that). Nothing found to support this is some special industry term, and an article is not needed to say that "late night anime are anime television series that air during late night or early morning in Japan, usually between 11 P.M. and 4 A.M." Seems to be entirely WP:OR and personal essay on a completely unnotable topic. Collectonian ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Comment- This is currently an improper AFD as the actual article makes no note of its nomination. There should be a tag on there letting people reading/editing the article know that it has been nominated for an AFD.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) blocked sock. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Per Stifle. And you are wrong Bikasuishin. Verifiable sources are a requirement for articles. Articles lacking independent source citations are deleted under
Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion standards. These articles, however, can be recreated easily if such sources are found later, thus addressing the reason that the article was deleted in the first place.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) —
Divinediscourse (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked sock account. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep - AFD is not article cleanup. - Malkinann ( talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've been reading over and researching this particular stub for a couple hours now and I can't find anything about it that suggests notability. This individual has an article due to a crime committed which is often cited as a failure in California's three strikes law. This fact makes it a clear failure to fulfill WP:BIO1E. The only pertinent information about this individual and this case is already found on Three strikes law, I see no reason that there needs to be a seperate article. Trusilver 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete, with a strong lean toward "KEEP"; default to Keep. - Philippe 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability? The guy has done nothing of note other than be a production assistant? Ashley Payne ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content. Author creating numerous nonsense pages. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism with no relevant Google hits. I was close to CSD'ing it under G1, but it didn't quite qualify. Richard Ω6 12 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable department of a university. No reliable sources, no relevant Google hits, and the article title is way too generalized and may be confused with other similar subjects. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism ( CSD#G3). — Travis talk 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax - no Ghits, no Yhits, something made up one day? ukexpat ( talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G3. Non-admin closure. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite apparently being "one of the wealthiest women of the Dominican Republic" and "the only Dominican Republic citizen to marry a noble decedant" she doesn't appear to be very notable as I only get nine google hits (26 including similar pages).
She may be a real person but I suspect this could be a hoax along with the likes of the series of Rodolfo Arismendy Parra articles
All the IP's who edit these type of articles (including Emilia Brugal) come from Lake Forest College so it's probably the same person adding all this nonsense. - dwc lr ( talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (see WP:SNOW). Stifle ( talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was God I hate to do this but... NO CONSENSUS. Default to KEEP. On a personal note, while I agree that not everything that's recreated is a solid contender for inclusion, I would say that persistance in creation is sometimes an indicator that it MAY be appropriate to IAR and allow something to stay. - Philippe 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
... A fictional coffee shop from the TV show Frasier. It's previously been AFD'd with a result of merge/redirect, recreated, prodded, deleted, recreated, restored and is sadly back with us again today. It's not at all relevant in the Frasier article (and therefore is a bad candidate for merging) and has no notability of its own - no reliable sources and has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Delete and salt please, or at best redirect and protect. -- Naerii 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.. - Philippe 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. No notability. Jaymacdonald ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
What do you mean no notability! That's taking the p**s! He's only just been named in the blooming squad! He actually plays for the team, so that's notability enough for me, it will also be confirmed if he plays against Tranmere Rovers tomorrow. JRRobinson ( talk) 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep I'm sorry but this whole thing seems so silly to me. If he is on the team then he is going to play eventually in the sometime near future. Why delete the article now if it will just be re-created in a matter of months, days, or as it happens hours.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Absent such a consensus, a deletion would not seem to be possible here, because the case has not been made that any WP:OR/ WP:NPOV issues this article may have cannot be remedied through editing or renaming. I'd like to note that the conduct of some editors particularly on the "delete" side was rather poor. In particular, allegations of bad faith or prejudice on the part of the other side are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Sandstein ( talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a POV-fork of terrorism. The quotes used to support the term largely do not use the word terrorism, and use of the term terrorism to describe the assassination of the Emperor Alexander II is blatant revisionism. Terrorism scores 45 million Google hits. "State terrorism" scores 368,000 Google hits. "Communist terrorism" scores 5,500. Top hit is this article. Second is YouTube. Third is "slantedright.blogspot.com". I think you get the idea. A few book sources use the term, but not as a term distinct from the obvious intersection implied by the title, and not as a major thesis, not even as chapter headings as far as I can tell, only as meaning terrorism carried out by (e.g.) communist insurgents: passing mentions not asserting a terminology. I don't see any mainstream sources expounding this term, the sources roughly divide between reliable sources that don't actually support the term (such as the quote from Nechaev which uses the word misery, which is then implied to be terrorism by novel synthesis) and blatantly unreliable sources such as Free Republic. Guy ( Help!) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Philippe 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article (and the two that I'll list below as well) cite sources that are not independent from the practicing organization, and are in fairly and difficult-to-fix POV tone that read like advertising for the organization. Unless notability independently established, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also listing the following related articles for deletion:
The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I suspect this to be a hoax. Yes, there is a book about him. But no, there is absolutely nothing that I can find in Chinese using the Chinese translation (四季子). The Google Book search, on page 5, describes him as a "mythical sage from an unknown time in an unknown place" but claims that "notes from his lost journals" may be found at siji-tzu.com -- which is a domain that doesn't exist. I see no evidence that the person actually existed or that these writings actually existed and were not simply a figment of the author's imagination. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Have either of you actually read the book or even seen a copy? If not than I think you may be making a premature judgment. I personally can't decide either way unless more evidence is brought to light. Insearchofintelligentlife ( talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable film. None of the people associated with it have articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete by User:NawlinWiki as expired prod just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Religious propaganda CycloneNimrod talk? 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as G11 Blatant advertising. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertising CycloneNimrod talk? 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus (default to keep). Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An unreleased album -- sort of -- with no reliable sources provided and none found. (Actually, it's "a collection of unreleased tracks suspected to be by Richard D. James, better known as Aphex Twin".) In any event, it lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with The Goonies Nakon 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about a fictional character in The Goonies, and there's not enough information to extend the article beyond stub stage. Perhaps it should be merged into The Goonies. Compare, favorably, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truffle shuffle Travisl ( talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Merge and redirect to The Goonies Per above comments.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
It's been five days, and the consensus is clearly merge and redirect. I've done so. Travisl ( talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, now someone (not part of this discussion) needs to close the AfD. — Becksguy ( talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as crystal ball. Mccc47 ( talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Star Wars/Youtube fancruft that does not meet notability requirements. The article is also named for the person responsible for the short film and yet the short film is the item given any hint of notability. ju66l3r ( talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be somebody's private vanity award. Sourced to a blogspot page run by "TV Extraordinaire". No indication of notability at all. ArglebargleIV ( talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a related page created by the same user:
The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy, admin declined and tagged for expansion with the comment "better tag, since many of these are being found notable at Afd".
No assertion of notability (unless congregations are inherently notable), and no sources. Seeking consensus. ukexpat ( talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete there are 4 Jewish congregations in my hometown area alone. Vishnava ( talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Just because there are a large amount of jewish temples doesn't necessarily meen that this temple is not notable Vishnava. The guidelines for notability for this page would be under
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Delete At this point the article fails notability by failing to provide independent secondary sources and failing to state the temple's notability. However, if such information and sources are added that could very well change.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 03:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Sorry guys. The editor should probably have put tags on the article for a while before nominating it for a speedy AFD. However, since he/she didn't do that we have to look at this through the eyes of AFD policy. And in this case a I would say Stifle summed it up clearly.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per
[29]
DGG (
talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge with Citizen Athletic Association Nakon 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. One-off set of two friendly matches held to celebrate a club's 60th anniversary. I don't see how this is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, unencyclopedic - Nabla ( talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, reason was that this is unencyclopedic original research. Please peruse the extensive discussion between the author and others on the article's talk page. -- Finngall talk 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Beck. Some content already there, if willing to merge some more you'll find it in 'history' - Nabla ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An early Beck demo. Yes, Beck is notable. This album is not. It was never released, so it requires substantial coverage in reliable sources. I found two reliable sources, both mere mentions. After the prod, the original editor added another, also just a mention. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Some people have remarked that this religious group might be notable if independent sources are provided, but so far none have been provided. If it's very fringe, there appears to be nothing worth merging into the mainline Orthodox church either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Recently founded religious fringe group, no evidence of their existence except their own website (with some evidence of COI Wikipedia editing [30]); number of members doesn't exceed literally two handful; zero outside coverage; entirely non-notable. Probably from the same folks who brought us Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia, as well as this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Carioca ( talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hardly any reference to him on Google, none at Google News. His "controversial 2006 book" doesn't seem to be available from Amazon. Looks like a vanity page. — Chowbok ☠ 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
single-purpose account user with obvious
conflict of interest; insufficient notatability; exaggerated
Alexa ratings claim (within 20,000, where my search indicated a peak of over 22,000 correction; yesterday it peaked at 15,573); bottom line: just not notable enough -
CobaltBlueTony™
talk 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge with High School Musical 2 (soundtrack) Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
HSMcruft Sceptre ( talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7/G11. Stifle ( talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability of this company/event is unclear, since no secondary sources are given. Since the article lead say s"Find us on Facebook", I suspect a COI creation. The article was speedied three times and recreated, interestingly the fourth speedy was declined, so I send it here for further discussion. B. Wolterding ( talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Very poorly defined and contentious list Sceptre ( talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Finding and varifying independent sources as to which bands are emo and which are not is a hopeless task. By keeping this page all you are asking for is edit wars and a list that is never accurate. This will never be a stable wikipedia article which is a sign of a bad page.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). AfD is not the best forum to address NPOV issues; take it to the talkpage, RfC or Arbcom if necessary. Skomorokh 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:Content fork of Yahweh. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism per CSD#G3. — Travis talk 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a hoax. No sources, and a Google search turns up nothing, which seems unlikely for a gang of "10000". TheMile ( talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Nakon 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Chaser - T 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
AfD relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article that reads like a press release, and is POV towards making the company look good. Also it has notability issues βcommand 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Nomination withdrawn. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article makes no claim of notability. Article has been tagged as needing references for the past 4 months with no worthwhile changes. Completely lacks independent verifiable sources and reads much like an advertisement. will381796 ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Article should have been tagged for lacking sources and not nominated for an AFD. Insearchofintelligentlife ( talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Due to the re-write and the addition of several new sources that clearly state the notability of these candies, I withdraw this nomination for AfD and ask that it be closed. will381796 ( talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local band with very little non-trivial media coverage. One self-released album, no hits, etc., etc.. Fails WP:MUSIC. Main contributors to the article—if they're not the same person (see their edit summaries)—all appear to be connected to the band. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete I hope I am not being rude when I say this, but there is absolutely nothing notable about this article. Ecoleetage ( talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. No claim of notability. Stifle ( talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established for this record label. Damiens.rf 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. This DJ's greatest life-achievement was to found a a non-notable record label, and a website about the music he like. Damiens.rf 13:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article does not seem to meet the notability requirement for authors. Thanks. Rnb ( talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. No notability, unsourced, no further scope of which to develop. Rudget 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax. Can't find any sources, that aren't mirrors, to back up any of the information which is currently sourced by a single blog. Onorem ♠ Dil 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It may not look like it, but this is actually a virtual airline, i.e. a club of people who play flight simulation games. Questionable if any notability or references Stifle ( talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Did None of you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and will you get over the fact we have an IATA Code? reason for it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Virtual_Aviation_Organization you will be there for hours if you complian to every VA that uses it
Delete entirely non-notable gaming club. -- 87.115.9.231 ( talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:Notability. Divinediscourse ( talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per Craw-daddy above. Conpletely non-notable and not an airline, but a game a group of people are playing. Also note false claims of IATA designation and threats of disruption by the author. Freederick ( talk) 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all redirected Event ID to ] Event Viewer Gnan garra 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about an ID? How is that even encyclopedic? or even necessary? Not to mention it does not pass the our regular test of notability? The event system of different systems might, but the mechanism of indexing the events recorded, don't think so. Moreover, looks like a dicdef. If at all, just a onle line addition to the event system (such as Event Viewer) article will be enough. soum talk 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition to this, several articles about individual Events have also been created, adding them to the discussion as well. Associated disambig and redirect pages are also listed here, for the sake of the administrator closing the discussion, should the articles get deleted.
The events, by themselves, also fail the notability test. Hardly any mainstream coverage, except for how-to guides and forums. Plus all those articles contain is the description text from the event viewer description, which can be considered a copyvio. Nothing more can hardly be added, without making it a how-to article. In short, the topics are suitable for a troubleshooting manual, not encyclopedia articles. -- soum talk 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here are the list of articles up for discussion:
|
|
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album ( crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed, called vandalism. Article's creator seems to have ownership issues. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Gnan garra 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert notability; it is litle more than a track listing -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Gnan garra 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability for this DJ has not been established by the article. The only one source used is an online autobiography (and it doesn't even support the article's text). Damiens.rf 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is really no point to this article. Most of the information is already in the main article, and everything else consists of useless facts that aere not needed on Wikipedia. — Parent5446 ( t n c k e l) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic, not maintainable, pretty useless list of programs that use a certain Mac OS X API ( Carbon). -- Dougie WII ( talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
May failure in WP:BIO. Sdrtirs ( talk) 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Gnan garra 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable youth section pf the professional club. Matthew_hk t c 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable ISP company Mahanchian ( talk) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Do not confuse with fuzzy logic or Fuzzy Mathematics. Article does not establish the notability of this particular use/misuse of the term. No citation is given for the claimed use in the US " math wars" debate. Single reference is to a misuse of the term by George Bush, which is not by itself notable or encyclopedic. Gandalf61 ( talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as per consensus, non predijuical at 17yrs old (born 1991) request restoration when(if) the subject meets the notability requirements. Gnan garra 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (removed by original author without explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully pro league, and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 ( talk) 09:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 ( talk) 09:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Mostly a coatrack article for some librarian named Matthew White. The information here is already in articles like List of events named massacres and List of wars and disasters by death toll and Genocides in history, organized in a far superior manner. Merzbow ( talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to full rigged ship. Merge at will. Pastordavid ( talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Inaccurate personal essay, wrong in many places, doesn't even stick to the topic of the title. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is another unnotable suburban church without any particular claims Grahame ( talk) 07:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G7. Oore ( talk) 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no reason a discography needs its own page. Oore ( talk) 06:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastordavid ( talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is pure advertising, although it is unusually well done by the standards of Wikipedia spam (which is why I'm not speedy deleting it outright). Judging from the username, the article was created by the institute's president, giving rise to conflict of interest problems. Despite the article's claims of notability, I can find no substantial coverage by reliable third party sources that would make this institute notable, or the content even verifiable. There are no hits in the Google News archives, for instance. Sandstein ( talk) 05:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete No verifiable independent coverage affirming this topic's notability. Some of the sources listed on the article are dubious such as the Buisness Weekly link that never actually mentions the Swiss Finance Academy and the source citing wikipedia itself which is a big no no. Divinediscourse ( talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/ WP:V sources which significantly discuss and analyze this work. The book itself is not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard, but rather compiled from his writings, by the Church of Scientology. In a search for the title "Dianetics Today" in three different news archives, 2 of the archives came up with zero hits - and in the third the only results were brief mentions, the majority of which appear to be advertisements placed in those publications by the publisher, Bridge Publications (Scientology publishing corporation). Zero results for the book in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. In a search in scholarly sources, found a mention in Christian Research Journal in an article by John Weldon - but this is only as a citation and the book is not discussed at all. In summation: no discussion of this book beyond a two-word mention of the title in any secondary WP:RS/ WP:V sources. Any information could be merged with the article Dianetics - though I don't think there is much useful sourced info as the Wikipedia article itself at present only contains three references affiliated with the publisher of the work itself. Cirt ( talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game, no sources, only link on talk page leads to picture on personal website, and very little on any combination of searches on Google. Spell4yr ( talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just MySpace/PureVolume promo links and link to indie label they have released one LP on. Stormie ( talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio and probably a hoax too. Stifle ( talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rapper, in all likelihood a hoax. Google hits are virtually all false positives. Search for Freeish Records only returns Wikipedia. No evidence that this person comes anywhere near meeting WP:MUSIC. No sources provided to verify any of these wild claims. DarkAudit ( talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Musical 4 (2nd nomination) was closed only days ago. Punkmorten ( talk) 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unreleased movie, not yet in production. ukexpat ( talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC - non-notable, unreleased album. ukexpat ( talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. Pastordavid ( talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is just another unnotable suburban church. Grahame ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is about a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there are no references for notability or verifyability. The article also goes against the manual of style WP:NEO Azazyel ( talk) 03:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Even from the article's creator, there are no reliable sources for the existence of this team, and only 4 Google hits total for its existence. Corvus cornix talk 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Both articles have nominations that link directly to this AfD, and neither of the articles were edited following their nomination, so I see no procedural basis for delaying this close - maybe there was a server hiccup of some sort? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appear to be non-notable albums; no reviews, no chart singles, etc. Judging by the label, these were probably self-released, short-lived albums, and probably fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail notability; the only contributor to the article is Mr. Salentes himself. He's the director of one department of one commission; while holding a government position grants a certain amount of notability, we have to stop after a certain point. Veinor (talk to me) 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Davis' claim to notability appears to be that he has appeared in support of international acts and operated a projector for Al Gore. I don't think that this makes him notable. Grahame ( talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus puts forward sources and suggests rewrite; nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH ( talk) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Its a collider that might possibly exist at some undetermined date in the future. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. RogueNinja talk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Irish organisation described in this article as "think-tank", but which actually appears to be (or have been) a membership association without the secretariat usually associated with a think-tank. The article's talk page shows that a few years ago the article was the subject of externally-mobilised edit wars between supporters and critics of the organisation, but that activity seems to have died down, presumably because the FI appears to be defunct ( its website is broken and appears to have been abandoned)
The only links or references are either to FI-related sites, apart from a list of links in Freedom Institute#Media. All of those links appear to be to articles written by members of the FI, rather than articles about the FI, and the onky one which even mentions the FI is this article in FrontPageMagazine.com, which gives it one brief mention in paragraph 13.
Without any sign of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, I think that the Freedom institute clearly fails WP:N. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Badly needs cleaning up, though. Neıl ☎ 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Besides strong
Biography of Living Persons concerns, this is a
point of view essay and
original research, not an encyclopedia article.
Corvus cornix
talk 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't think that this "senior adviser" to Condaleeza Rice is notable. Apparently he's in charge of her travel arrangements. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike, non-admin closure. (That was fast.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like nonsense. Sesel ( talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I did some searching for this organization, and I honestly couldn't find much beyond directory mentions and the like - nothing significant from second or third party sources. This appears to fail WP:CORP. I don't see the recognition purported in the article. [48] and [49]. The latter appears reliable - but it's just a single source. Also [50]. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 01:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software company. Dougie WII ( talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. There are 1060 Googehits, but none seem to be from reliable sources. Only five GoogleNews hits, three of which are press releases, and the other two only mention the company. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear on this, and no arguments have been put forward that suggest Ms Schvarts has any other accomplishments than this one event. Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced" or (worse) "keep because individual exists" are particularly weak. Neıl ☎ 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject is not sufficiently notable; she's enjoying her "15 minutes" for a story about a college art project (ostensibly she deliberately got pregnant and had abortions; it was a hoax). I don't think this meets the stadard of WP:NOTE. -- Narsil ( talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
OSHII- IT'S NOT OVER YET GUYS! http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528 - SHVARTS REFUTES YALE'S CLAIM THAT SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.
The result was merge to Changeling: The Dreaming. Done. Neıl ☎ 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional race from a role-playing game universe. No references found in search beyond those from original game book sources, fans sites and other wikis. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. Non-notable group/record label. Unsourced by third parties. Rudget 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete No assertion of notability. No major (or any) references help this matter either. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was looking through wikipedia the past hour and thought that this article wasnt notable and is a probable copyright violation.-- Pookeo9 ( talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I suggest the issues here are far too complex for an AFD at present, and suggest further discussions on the relevant article talk page. Neıl ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
First, this is a an unreferenced article under a rarely used name ( [54]); this redirect (Suwalki region) is 20 times as popular. It has been suggested in the past that this article should be merged with Sudovia [55] (aka Suwalszczyzna [56]), the target article should be renamed either Suwałki region or remain as Sudovia. Certainly, no evidence has been presented (despite discussion split between both talkpages - Talk:Sudovia and Talk:Suvalkai Region) to support the existence of the two articles on the same region (no refs differentiate between entity A - Suvalkai Region and entity B - Sudovia, together with entity C - Suwalszczyzna and entity D - Suwałki Region - they are simply the different names for the same place ( here, for example, is a Polish government site that equates Suwalki Region - a redirect to Suvalkai Region - with Suwalszczyzna, a redirect to Sudovia... Also, note the lack of Lithuanian or Polish interwikis on Suwalkai Region, and extensive interwikis on Sudovia (surely if the Suvalkai Region was important as a separate entity, Lithuanian or Polish wikis would have an article on it). Simply put, one of them severs as a POV fork, with one article being geared towards the Lithuanian POV and another one, towards the Polish POV. In the end it's one and the same region and both POVs should be presented in one article. Hence, I believe that this article should be merged and redirected into Sudovia, which may or may not need to be moved to Suwałki region. Merger of histories would also be useful here, as both articles have been relatively significantly edited in the past. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't have map for Suwalszczyzna, but it's pretty much the Suwaŀki Governorate that's now in Poland. My zero Polish knowledge is enough to understand that that article in Polish Wikipedia has nothing to do with Lithuanian Sudovia. And Sudovia has really nothing to do with Poland - it's a region of Lithuania. So it's a mistake to redirect Suwalszczyzna to Sudovia. It should be an article on its own. And then we can discuss whether to merge Suwalszczyzna with Suvalkai Region as those areas do largely overlap. Renata ( talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Regular Google:
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
CycloneNimrod talk? 17:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn, consensus for keep. Non-admin closure. victor falk 14:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article does not adequately establish notability through its sources, and consists mainly of gamecruft and other content unsuitable in an article, such as overly-elaborate details and trivia. Furthermore, the game articles for the series are enough to describe the characters and plot, a separate plot-only article is unnecessary. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and since this article appears to be little else, it does not belong. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. . - Philippe 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about comedic fandubs of anime. While we've deleted article individual series of this type ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naruto: the abridged series and the countless variations of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series), this article is about the concept of a whole. Unfortunately, it still doesn't meet the notability and verifiability guidelines. By "not notable", this means that the idea of an "abridged series" has yet to be covered in-depth by a newspaper, magazine, scholarly journal, peer-reviewed thesis or other reliable, fact-checked sources. Google hits, YouTube views, or number of people on blogs or forums talking about it are not reliable sources. A search through EbscoHost found absoltely nothing for "abridged series" or "abridged anime", and the idea (as far as I know) has yet to be covered in a newspaper, magazine or other fact-checked sources. The "references" on this page are just a link to the homepage of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series and a entry on that series in a Yu-Gi-Oh! wiki, neither of which fit into the reliable source defition. Note that we've also deleted an article on this type of series before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abridged Series. Ultimately, this idea, while I'm sure is funny to quite a lot of people, doesn't meet our verifiability and notability guidelines. NeoChaosX ( talk, walk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle ( talk) 14:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on a non-notable person. A Google search on "Walter Laybourne" [1] renders just 20 hits, none of them an independent tertiary source, most of them actually this page or other wiki pages. Article was prodded, but prod tag removed without explanation and article not improved to establish notability. Crusio ( talk) 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Unless notable third party coverage can be found. Insearchofintelligentlife ( talk) 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastordavid ( talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; reason given for prod was "Non-notable self-published (lulu press) author." Sources not present, establishing lack of non-notability, and the contested reason given in the edit summary, "Author's website is yet to be complete and published articles have recently been written, though not yet published.", doesn't mesh well with the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Veinor (talk to me) 22:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Likely doesn't meet the notability guidelines. There were no references provided, either. A google search reveals nothing that would make this person notable. Also, there was no hits for news. Crazy Boris with a red beard ( talk) 22:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an edit of the previously existing Ian Devine page with more information and an expanded biography. That was not listed for deletion. He is a musician of some renown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by COBRPINDAR ( talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 14:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
questionable notability, article for band doesn't even exist Crazy Boris with a red beard ( talk) 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G12 by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, but the state of the text asks for a proper debate. Crazy Boris with a red beard ( talk) 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm sure the Scottish Masonic lodge was right to conclude she was a nice woman, worthy of acclaim, but I wikipedia may wish to take another view. Unreferenced and not notable "lady of distinction" Docg 21:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; without prejudice to recreation if properly sourced. - Philippe 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This manga seems non-notable due to lack of independent coverage. PROD was contested with comment: "There are 3 volumes out. I need to assert why this series is notable" Now being published in 3 volumes is not an assertion of notability, at least not a valid one per WP:BOOK. Article had been tagged with {{ notability}} for about one year. B. Wolterding ( talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Why would this computer monitor pass WP:PRODUCT? PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding ( talk) 21:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7/G11. Stifle ( talk) 14:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Gaming platform. A google search for "Garena" and "gaming platform" disagrees with the claim of "millions of players around the world", producing just 42 unique hits. Article does not provide any sources other than its own official website. Roleplayer ( talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
i don't said milion people connect at once ... i said (long number) User ID on there ... give my page back ... some time gamer can made several id , also as player come , some of player go ... Write all of them ,or back to me , or give me better reason on my e-mail not this **** , or i'll ruin several good :'( ,this is 4-5 times that it deleted becuz of your hard web site ,and now you :'( it take several hours of my time each day , and u delete that so easily ... :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeadManN ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted by User:Discospinster as A7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t• c 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Biography on a person with no real significance. CycloneNimrod talk? 20:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike as G7. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t• c 21:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Spam, article creator has removed the speedy tag three times Frog47 ( talk) 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, reason was "notability - fails wp:academic". Autobiography whose prod tag was removed without explanation by author/subject. -- Finngall talk 20:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete Agree per Nsk92. He may be notable someday but not today.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 00:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Per nom.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 18:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was redirect. I'm going to leave the article history intact so that someone can merge if they feel strongly. - Philippe 02:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable political activist from Northern Ireland. The article contains two assertions of notability:
The article has no references, but lists two external links. One is a [dead link], and the other is just correspondence on the letters page of an obscure publication. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 02:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced dictionary-term type article for a non-notable phrase that is simply a description (and a rather "duh" one at that). Nothing found to support this is some special industry term, and an article is not needed to say that "late night anime are anime television series that air during late night or early morning in Japan, usually between 11 P.M. and 4 A.M." Seems to be entirely WP:OR and personal essay on a completely unnotable topic. Collectonian ( talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Comment- This is currently an improper AFD as the actual article makes no note of its nomination. There should be a tag on there letting people reading/editing the article know that it has been nominated for an AFD.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 00:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC) blocked sock. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Per Stifle. And you are wrong Bikasuishin. Verifiable sources are a requirement for articles. Articles lacking independent source citations are deleted under
Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion standards. These articles, however, can be recreated easily if such sources are found later, thus addressing the reason that the article was deleted in the first place.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 18:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) —
Divinediscourse (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. blocked sock account. Cheers,
Casliber (
talk ·
contribs) 09:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep - AFD is not article cleanup. - Malkinann ( talk) 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 02:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I've been reading over and researching this particular stub for a couple hours now and I can't find anything about it that suggests notability. This individual has an article due to a crime committed which is often cited as a failure in California's three strikes law. This fact makes it a clear failure to fulfill WP:BIO1E. The only pertinent information about this individual and this case is already found on Three strikes law, I see no reason that there needs to be a seperate article. Trusilver 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete, with a strong lean toward "KEEP"; default to Keep. - Philippe 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability? The guy has done nothing of note other than be a production assistant? Ashley Payne ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a3, no meaningful content. Author creating numerous nonsense pages. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism with no relevant Google hits. I was close to CSD'ing it under G1, but it didn't quite qualify. Richard Ω6 12 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete a7, group with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki ( talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable department of a university. No reliable sources, no relevant Google hits, and the article title is way too generalized and may be confused with other similar subjects. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 19:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism ( CSD#G3). — Travis talk 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Possible hoax - no Ghits, no Yhits, something made up one day? ukexpat ( talk) 18:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G3. Non-admin closure. -- lifebaka ( Talk - Contribs) 20:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Despite apparently being "one of the wealthiest women of the Dominican Republic" and "the only Dominican Republic citizen to marry a noble decedant" she doesn't appear to be very notable as I only get nine google hits (26 including similar pages).
She may be a real person but I suspect this could be a hoax along with the likes of the series of Rodolfo Arismendy Parra articles
All the IP's who edit these type of articles (including Emilia Brugal) come from Lake Forest College so it's probably the same person adding all this nonsense. - dwc lr ( talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (see WP:SNOW). Stifle ( talk) 14:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was God I hate to do this but... NO CONSENSUS. Default to KEEP. On a personal note, while I agree that not everything that's recreated is a solid contender for inclusion, I would say that persistance in creation is sometimes an indicator that it MAY be appropriate to IAR and allow something to stay. - Philippe 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
... A fictional coffee shop from the TV show Frasier. It's previously been AFD'd with a result of merge/redirect, recreated, prodded, deleted, recreated, restored and is sadly back with us again today. It's not at all relevant in the Frasier article (and therefore is a bad candidate for merging) and has no notability of its own - no reliable sources and has been tagged for cleanup since 2006. Delete and salt please, or at best redirect and protect. -- Naerii 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.. - Philippe 02:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. No notability. Jaymacdonald ( talk) 15:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
What do you mean no notability! That's taking the p**s! He's only just been named in the blooming squad! He actually plays for the team, so that's notability enough for me, it will also be confirmed if he plays against Tranmere Rovers tomorrow. JRRobinson ( talk) 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Keep I'm sorry but this whole thing seems so silly to me. If he is on the team then he is going to play eventually in the sometime near future. Why delete the article now if it will just be re-created in a matter of months, days, or as it happens hours.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 19:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Absent such a consensus, a deletion would not seem to be possible here, because the case has not been made that any WP:OR/ WP:NPOV issues this article may have cannot be remedied through editing or renaming. I'd like to note that the conduct of some editors particularly on the "delete" side was rather poor. In particular, allegations of bad faith or prejudice on the part of the other side are not valid reasons to keep or delete an article. Sandstein ( talk) 06:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a POV-fork of terrorism. The quotes used to support the term largely do not use the word terrorism, and use of the term terrorism to describe the assassination of the Emperor Alexander II is blatant revisionism. Terrorism scores 45 million Google hits. "State terrorism" scores 368,000 Google hits. "Communist terrorism" scores 5,500. Top hit is this article. Second is YouTube. Third is "slantedright.blogspot.com". I think you get the idea. A few book sources use the term, but not as a term distinct from the obvious intersection implied by the title, and not as a major thesis, not even as chapter headings as far as I can tell, only as meaning terrorism carried out by (e.g.) communist insurgents: passing mentions not asserting a terminology. I don't see any mainstream sources expounding this term, the sources roughly divide between reliable sources that don't actually support the term (such as the quote from Nechaev which uses the word misery, which is then implied to be terrorism by novel synthesis) and blatantly unreliable sources such as Free Republic. Guy ( Help!) 17:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Philippe 02:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This article (and the two that I'll list below as well) cite sources that are not independent from the practicing organization, and are in fairly and difficult-to-fix POV tone that read like advertising for the organization. Unless notability independently established, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also listing the following related articles for deletion:
The result was Delete. EdJohnston ( talk) 03:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I suspect this to be a hoax. Yes, there is a book about him. But no, there is absolutely nothing that I can find in Chinese using the Chinese translation (四季子). The Google Book search, on page 5, describes him as a "mythical sage from an unknown time in an unknown place" but claims that "notes from his lost journals" may be found at siji-tzu.com -- which is a domain that doesn't exist. I see no evidence that the person actually existed or that these writings actually existed and were not simply a figment of the author's imagination. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 17:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Have either of you actually read the book or even seen a copy? If not than I think you may be making a premature judgment. I personally can't decide either way unless more evidence is brought to light. Insearchofintelligentlife ( talk) 02:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable film. None of the people associated with it have articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete by User:NawlinWiki as expired prod just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Religious propaganda CycloneNimrod talk? 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted as G11 Blatant advertising. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Advertising CycloneNimrod talk? 16:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus (default to keep). Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 09:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An unreleased album -- sort of -- with no reliable sources provided and none found. (Actually, it's "a collection of unreleased tracks suspected to be by Richard D. James, better known as Aphex Twin".) In any event, it lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 16:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with The Goonies Nakon 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about a fictional character in The Goonies, and there's not enough information to extend the article beyond stub stage. Perhaps it should be merged into The Goonies. Compare, favorably, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truffle shuffle Travisl ( talk) 16:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
*Merge and redirect to The Goonies Per above comments.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 19:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
It's been five days, and the consensus is clearly merge and redirect. I've done so. Travisl ( talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
OK, now someone (not part of this discussion) needs to close the AfD. — Becksguy ( talk) 04:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as crystal ball. Mccc47 ( talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Star Wars/Youtube fancruft that does not meet notability requirements. The article is also named for the person responsible for the short film and yet the short film is the item given any hint of notability. ju66l3r ( talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be somebody's private vanity award. Sourced to a blogspot page run by "TV Extraordinaire". No indication of notability at all. ArglebargleIV ( talk) 16:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because it's a related page created by the same user:
The result was Keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 05:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Was tagged for speedy, admin declined and tagged for expansion with the comment "better tag, since many of these are being found notable at Afd".
No assertion of notability (unless congregations are inherently notable), and no sources. Seeking consensus. ukexpat ( talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete there are 4 Jewish congregations in my hometown area alone. Vishnava ( talk) 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Just because there are a large amount of jewish temples doesn't necessarily meen that this temple is not notable Vishnava. The guidelines for notability for this page would be under
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 03:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
Delete At this point the article fails notability by failing to provide independent secondary sources and failing to state the temple's notability. However, if such information and sources are added that could very well change.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 03:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete Sorry guys. The editor should probably have put tags on the article for a while before nominating it for a speedy AFD. However, since he/she didn't do that we have to look at this through the eyes of AFD policy. And in this case a I would say Stifle summed it up clearly.
Divinediscourse (
talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Editor blocked indef as a sockpuppet by Casliber per
[29]
DGG (
talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge with Citizen Athletic Association Nakon 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. One-off set of two friendly matches held to celebrate a club's 60th anniversary. I don't see how this is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, unencyclopedic - Nabla ( talk) 11:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, reason was that this is unencyclopedic original research. Please peruse the extensive discussion between the author and others on the article's talk page. -- Finngall talk 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Beck. Some content already there, if willing to merge some more you'll find it in 'history' - Nabla ( talk) 11:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An early Beck demo. Yes, Beck is notable. This album is not. It was never released, so it requires substantial coverage in reliable sources. I found two reliable sources, both mere mentions. After the prod, the original editor added another, also just a mention. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Some people have remarked that this religious group might be notable if independent sources are provided, but so far none have been provided. If it's very fringe, there appears to be nothing worth merging into the mainline Orthodox church either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Recently founded religious fringe group, no evidence of their existence except their own website (with some evidence of COI Wikipedia editing [30]); number of members doesn't exceed literally two handful; zero outside coverage; entirely non-notable. Probably from the same folks who brought us Bulgarian Human Rights in Macedonia, as well as this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Carioca ( talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Hardly any reference to him on Google, none at Google News. His "controversial 2006 book" doesn't seem to be available from Amazon. Looks like a vanity page. — Chowbok ☠ 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
single-purpose account user with obvious
conflict of interest; insufficient notatability; exaggerated
Alexa ratings claim (within 20,000, where my search indicated a peak of over 22,000 correction; yesterday it peaked at 15,573); bottom line: just not notable enough -
CobaltBlueTony™
talk 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Merge with High School Musical 2 (soundtrack) Nakon 16:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
HSMcruft Sceptre ( talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7/G11. Stifle ( talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability of this company/event is unclear, since no secondary sources are given. Since the article lead say s"Find us on Facebook", I suspect a COI creation. The article was speedied three times and recreated, interestingly the fourth speedy was declined, so I send it here for further discussion. B. Wolterding ( talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus, defaults to Keep Nakon 16:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Very poorly defined and contentious list Sceptre ( talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Finding and varifying independent sources as to which bands are emo and which are not is a hopeless task. By keeping this page all you are asking for is edit wars and a list that is never accurate. This will never be a stable wikipedia article which is a sign of a bad page.
Insearchofintelligentlife (
talk) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). AfD is not the best forum to address NPOV issues; take it to the talkpage, RfC or Arbcom if necessary. Skomorokh 23:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:Content fork of Yahweh. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 14:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as hoax/vandalism per CSD#G3. — Travis talk 16:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a hoax. No sources, and a Google search turns up nothing, which seems unlikely for a gang of "10000". TheMile ( talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Nakon 16:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Chaser - T 23:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC) reply
AfD relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article that reads like a press release, and is POV towards making the company look good. Also it has notability issues βcommand 19:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Nomination withdrawn. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article makes no claim of notability. Article has been tagged as needing references for the past 4 months with no worthwhile changes. Completely lacks independent verifiable sources and reads much like an advertisement. will381796 ( talk) 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Article should have been tagged for lacking sources and not nominated for an AFD. Insearchofintelligentlife ( talk) 03:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Due to the re-write and the addition of several new sources that clearly state the notability of these candies, I withdraw this nomination for AfD and ask that it be closed. will381796 ( talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local band with very little non-trivial media coverage. One self-released album, no hits, etc., etc.. Fails WP:MUSIC. Main contributors to the article—if they're not the same person (see their edit summaries)—all appear to be connected to the band. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete I hope I am not being rude when I say this, but there is absolutely nothing notable about this article. Ecoleetage ( talk) 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. No claim of notability. Stifle ( talk) 14:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established for this record label. Damiens.rf 13:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. Stifle ( talk) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established. This DJ's greatest life-achievement was to found a a non-notable record label, and a website about the music he like. Damiens.rf 13:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article does not seem to meet the notability requirement for authors. Thanks. Rnb ( talk) 13:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. No notability, unsourced, no further scope of which to develop. Rudget 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax. Can't find any sources, that aren't mirrors, to back up any of the information which is currently sourced by a single blog. Onorem ♠ Dil 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
It may not look like it, but this is actually a virtual airline, i.e. a club of people who play flight simulation games. Questionable if any notability or references Stifle ( talk) 13:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Did None of you read this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers and will you get over the fact we have an IATA Code? reason for it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Virtual_Aviation_Organization you will be there for hours if you complian to every VA that uses it
Delete entirely non-notable gaming club. -- 87.115.9.231 ( talk) 17:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:Notability. Divinediscourse ( talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per Craw-daddy above. Conpletely non-notable and not an airline, but a game a group of people are playing. Also note false claims of IATA designation and threats of disruption by the author. Freederick ( talk) 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all redirected Event ID to ] Event Viewer Gnan garra 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
An article about an ID? How is that even encyclopedic? or even necessary? Not to mention it does not pass the our regular test of notability? The event system of different systems might, but the mechanism of indexing the events recorded, don't think so. Moreover, looks like a dicdef. If at all, just a onle line addition to the event system (such as Event Viewer) article will be enough. soum talk 12:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
In addition to this, several articles about individual Events have also been created, adding them to the discussion as well. Associated disambig and redirect pages are also listed here, for the sake of the administrator closing the discussion, should the articles get deleted.
The events, by themselves, also fail the notability test. Hardly any mainstream coverage, except for how-to guides and forums. Plus all those articles contain is the description text from the event viewer description, which can be considered a copyvio. Nothing more can hardly be added, without making it a how-to article. In short, the topics are suitable for a troubleshooting manual, not encyclopedia articles. -- soum talk 13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Here are the list of articles up for discussion:
|
|
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased album ( crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed, called vandalism. Article's creator seems to have ownership issues. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Gnan garra 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Article does not assert notability; it is litle more than a track listing -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Gnan garra 14:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability for this DJ has not been established by the article. The only one source used is an online autobiography (and it doesn't even support the article's text). Damiens.rf 12:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is really no point to this article. Most of the information is already in the main article, and everything else consists of useless facts that aere not needed on Wikipedia. — Parent5446 ( t n c k e l) 11:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not encyclopedic, not maintainable, pretty useless list of programs that use a certain Mac OS X API ( Carbon). -- Dougie WII ( talk) 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 18:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
May failure in WP:BIO. Sdrtirs ( talk) 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Gnan garra 14:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable youth section pf the professional club. Matthew_hk t c 11:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 15:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable ISP company Mahanchian ( talk) 10:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and Redirect to Fuzzy mathematics Nakon 16:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Do not confuse with fuzzy logic or Fuzzy Mathematics. Article does not establish the notability of this particular use/misuse of the term. No citation is given for the claimed use in the US " math wars" debate. Single reference is to a misuse of the term by George Bush, which is not by itself notable or encyclopedic. Gandalf61 ( talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as per consensus, non predijuical at 17yrs old (born 1991) request restoration when(if) the subject meets the notability requirements. Gnan garra 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (removed by original author without explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully pro league, and consensus is that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 ( talk) 09:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay containing personal opinion and book reviews: fails Original research; Synthesis of published material. Ros0709 ( talk) 09:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Mostly a coatrack article for some librarian named Matthew White. The information here is already in articles like List of events named massacres and List of wars and disasters by death toll and Genocides in history, organized in a far superior manner. Merzbow ( talk) 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirected to full rigged ship. Merge at will. Pastordavid ( talk) 13:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Inaccurate personal essay, wrong in many places, doesn't even stick to the topic of the title. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is another unnotable suburban church without any particular claims Grahame ( talk) 07:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G7. Oore ( talk) 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no reason a discography needs its own page. Oore ( talk) 06:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Pastordavid ( talk) 13:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is pure advertising, although it is unusually well done by the standards of Wikipedia spam (which is why I'm not speedy deleting it outright). Judging from the username, the article was created by the institute's president, giving rise to conflict of interest problems. Despite the article's claims of notability, I can find no substantial coverage by reliable third party sources that would make this institute notable, or the content even verifiable. There are no hits in the Google News archives, for instance. Sandstein ( talk) 05:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete No verifiable independent coverage affirming this topic's notability. Some of the sources listed on the article are dubious such as the Buisness Weekly link that never actually mentions the Swiss Finance Academy and the source citing wikipedia itself which is a big no no. Divinediscourse ( talk) 21:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/ WP:V sources which significantly discuss and analyze this work. The book itself is not actually written by L. Ron Hubbard, but rather compiled from his writings, by the Church of Scientology. In a search for the title "Dianetics Today" in three different news archives, 2 of the archives came up with zero hits - and in the third the only results were brief mentions, the majority of which appear to be advertisements placed in those publications by the publisher, Bridge Publications (Scientology publishing corporation). Zero results for the book in an index of book reviews in InfoTrac. In a search in scholarly sources, found a mention in Christian Research Journal in an article by John Weldon - but this is only as a citation and the book is not discussed at all. In summation: no discussion of this book beyond a two-word mention of the title in any secondary WP:RS/ WP:V sources. Any information could be merged with the article Dianetics - though I don't think there is much useful sourced info as the Wikipedia article itself at present only contains three references affiliated with the publisher of the work itself. Cirt ( talk) 05:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game, no sources, only link on talk page leads to picture on personal website, and very little on any combination of searches on Google. Spell4yr ( talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Band with no assertion of notability, fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria, no reliable sources, just MySpace/PureVolume promo links and link to indie label they have released one LP on. Stormie ( talk) 05:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as nn-bio and probably a hoax too. Stifle ( talk) 13:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable rapper, in all likelihood a hoax. Google hits are virtually all false positives. Search for Freeish Records only returns Wikipedia. No evidence that this person comes anywhere near meeting WP:MUSIC. No sources provided to verify any of these wild claims. DarkAudit ( talk) 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Musical 4 (2nd nomination) was closed only days ago. Punkmorten ( talk) 07:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, unreleased movie, not yet in production. ukexpat ( talk) 04:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC - non-notable, unreleased album. ukexpat ( talk) 04:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. Pastordavid ( talk) 13:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
This is just another unnotable suburban church. Grahame ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is about a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there are no references for notability or verifyability. The article also goes against the manual of style WP:NEO Azazyel ( talk) 03:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Even from the article's creator, there are no reliable sources for the existence of this team, and only 4 Google hits total for its existence. Corvus cornix talk 02:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Both articles have nominations that link directly to this AfD, and neither of the articles were edited following their nomination, so I see no procedural basis for delaying this close - maybe there was a server hiccup of some sort? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Appear to be non-notable albums; no reviews, no chart singles, etc. Judging by the label, these were probably self-released, short-lived albums, and probably fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to fail notability; the only contributor to the article is Mr. Salentes himself. He's the director of one department of one commission; while holding a government position grants a certain amount of notability, we have to stop after a certain point. Veinor (talk to me) 02:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mr. Z-man 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Davis' claim to notability appears to be that he has appeared in support of international acts and operated a projector for Al Gore. I don't think that this makes him notable. Grahame ( talk) 02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Consensus puts forward sources and suggests rewrite; nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH ( talk) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Its a collider that might possibly exist at some undetermined date in the future. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. RogueNinja talk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable Irish organisation described in this article as "think-tank", but which actually appears to be (or have been) a membership association without the secretariat usually associated with a think-tank. The article's talk page shows that a few years ago the article was the subject of externally-mobilised edit wars between supporters and critics of the organisation, but that activity seems to have died down, presumably because the FI appears to be defunct ( its website is broken and appears to have been abandoned)
The only links or references are either to FI-related sites, apart from a list of links in Freedom Institute#Media. All of those links appear to be to articles written by members of the FI, rather than articles about the FI, and the onky one which even mentions the FI is this article in FrontPageMagazine.com, which gives it one brief mention in paragraph 13.
Without any sign of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, I think that the Freedom institute clearly fails WP:N. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Badly needs cleaning up, though. Neıl ☎ 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Besides strong
Biography of Living Persons concerns, this is a
point of view essay and
original research, not an encyclopedia article.
Corvus cornix
talk 01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't think that this "senior adviser" to Condaleeza Rice is notable. Apparently he's in charge of her travel arrangements. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources required by WP:BIO. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by Orangemike, non-admin closure. (That was fast.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like nonsense. Sesel ( talk) 01:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I did some searching for this organization, and I honestly couldn't find much beyond directory mentions and the like - nothing significant from second or third party sources. This appears to fail WP:CORP. I don't see the recognition purported in the article. [48] and [49]. The latter appears reliable - but it's just a single source. Also [50]. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 01:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 12:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software company. Dougie WII ( talk) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CORP. There are 1060 Googehits, but none seem to be from reliable sources. Only five GoogleNews hits, three of which are press releases, and the other two only mention the company. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 00:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear on this, and no arguments have been put forward that suggest Ms Schvarts has any other accomplishments than this one event. Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced" or (worse) "keep because individual exists" are particularly weak. Neıl ☎ 12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject is not sufficiently notable; she's enjoying her "15 minutes" for a story about a college art project (ostensibly she deliberately got pregnant and had abortions; it was a hoax). I don't think this meets the stadard of WP:NOTE. -- Narsil ( talk) 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
OSHII- IT'S NOT OVER YET GUYS! http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528 - SHVARTS REFUTES YALE'S CLAIM THAT SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.
The result was merge to Changeling: The Dreaming. Done. Neıl ☎ 13:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable fictional race from a role-playing game universe. No references found in search beyond those from original game book sources, fans sites and other wikis. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under CSD criterion A7. Non-notable group/record label. Unsourced by third parties. Rudget 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete No assertion of notability. No major (or any) references help this matter either. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 17:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
I was looking through wikipedia the past hour and thought that this article wasnt notable and is a probable copyright violation.-- Pookeo9 ( talk) 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I suggest the issues here are far too complex for an AFD at present, and suggest further discussions on the relevant article talk page. Neıl ☎ 13:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC) reply
First, this is a an unreferenced article under a rarely used name ( [54]); this redirect (Suwalki region) is 20 times as popular. It has been suggested in the past that this article should be merged with Sudovia [55] (aka Suwalszczyzna [56]), the target article should be renamed either Suwałki region or remain as Sudovia. Certainly, no evidence has been presented (despite discussion split between both talkpages - Talk:Sudovia and Talk:Suvalkai Region) to support the existence of the two articles on the same region (no refs differentiate between entity A - Suvalkai Region and entity B - Sudovia, together with entity C - Suwalszczyzna and entity D - Suwałki Region - they are simply the different names for the same place ( here, for example, is a Polish government site that equates Suwalki Region - a redirect to Suvalkai Region - with Suwalszczyzna, a redirect to Sudovia... Also, note the lack of Lithuanian or Polish interwikis on Suwalkai Region, and extensive interwikis on Sudovia (surely if the Suvalkai Region was important as a separate entity, Lithuanian or Polish wikis would have an article on it). Simply put, one of them severs as a POV fork, with one article being geared towards the Lithuanian POV and another one, towards the Polish POV. In the end it's one and the same region and both POVs should be presented in one article. Hence, I believe that this article should be merged and redirected into Sudovia, which may or may not need to be moved to Suwałki region. Merger of histories would also be useful here, as both articles have been relatively significantly edited in the past. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't have map for Suwalszczyzna, but it's pretty much the Suwaŀki Governorate that's now in Poland. My zero Polish knowledge is enough to understand that that article in Polish Wikipedia has nothing to do with Lithuanian Sudovia. And Sudovia has really nothing to do with Poland - it's a region of Lithuania. So it's a mistake to redirect Suwalszczyzna to Sudovia. It should be an article on its own. And then we can discuss whether to merge Suwalszczyzna with Suvalkai Region as those areas do largely overlap. Renata ( talk) 17:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Regular Google: