The result was deleted as nonsense a long time before this AFD was submitted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Goof Gas Attack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just review history. Becuase the history part was a speedy deletion that it wouldn't be a good article. IF you it was edited by users. That mean I view history. Only this logs was a speedy deletion part of this. Decied to edit this page again. It sould be deleted. Only view history of this page. If you can't view history of pages. Only exist with new results. It was deleted. I cannot read this page soon it was deleted. IF these users create a page again. They will be blocked. Using without to much categories. You already in the Wikipedia. It was waited for nonsesne review articles. Becuase i add {{
db-nonsense}}
and viewed history.--
JGJGJGJGJGJG (
talk)
17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Of doubtful notability. Has been completely unsourced for many months now. The very model of a minor general ( talk) 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Intellitech. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the feedback, I can see from your point the account is an SPA account. Probably should of added other contributions first. It is interesting that other EDA companies have similar entries that are allowed. I previously pointed out Azuro. Only recently on Jan 30,2008 do they appear on new.google.com. To meet that particular criteria, a TMCnet article picked up their press release. I can't explain why Intellitech doesn't show up in news.google.com as it does appear on TMCNet in numerous places [ [3]]. TMW www.tmworld.com magazine regularly run articles on the company's technology, including cover articles, and three best-in-test awards in the last four years.
The company is listed in Wiki List of EDA companies and was not included in that list by me. I tried to update that informatuon and it was deleted as well. Apparently the editors would rather have that entry with a incomplete ? than the information I supplied. That's a bit confusing.
There's not much I can do if you choose to delete it. I thank you for the opportunity to try working with Wikipedia. Jtagchair ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Further, Intellitech appears in the Wiki Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies [4]. The entry for Intellitech is an attempt to add completeness to the Wikipedia for companies that appear in other areas of the Wikipedia. It seems odd that entries in Wikipedia that include Intellitech are accepted but to define the word/company beyond the entry is not acceptable. I'm new to this, so perhaps there is some bigger picture I am not seeing that would make that contradiction more logical. Jtagchair ( talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
From the best I can understand, the primary WP:CORP requirement is 'noteworthy'. As prior pointed out, the company name appears in two other Wiki locations, however without the appropriate information and link. Further, Test & Measurement World Magazine (hard copy and online) is the premier source of electronic information in the industry. It' editors have chosen Intellitech products for a Best-in-Test award for three years (one is here: [5] ) The magazine featured an Intellitech customer and Intellitech technology as its cover story last summer. [6] This is not an article submitted or created by the company. Jtagchair ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-press release related coverage of Intellitech by FPGA Journal [7] Jtagchair ( talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Gavin, in case you didn't have time to read the above, this second source was given http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA6447662.html and this one: http://www.fpgajournal.com/articles_2007/20070612_roux.htm Jtagchair ( talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
XSG, OK. I wasn't aware that the references should be in the wiki for Intellitech. I'll take a stab at doing that. Thanks for the constructive feedback and help for the novice as to what needs to be done. Jtagchair ( talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dear Gavin and XSG, Please note I have frequently given [Azuro] as an example of a company in our EDA industry, which appears in Wiki but did not meet the same scrutiny as Intellitech. It does not have the second sources listed in the article nor do they exsist other than press releases. We should be even handed across the board. Further, the type of article here in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies should not be included wiki if you are not interested in having the companies listed there be in Wiki either. Jtagchair ( talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
XSG, I added the notable references to the article. Seems that it reads more 'promotional'though which may offend someone. Jtagchair ( talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your input, but it does meet the guidelines of WD:CORP. Please explain all how fellow companies in EDA are acceptable to Wiki and Intellitech is not. Here is Azuro's wiki page, I'm including it since no one is looking at it.
Azuro, Inc. is an electronic design automation (EDA) software company. It is headquartered in Santa Clara, California with a development office in Cambridge, UK.
Azuro develops software for the design of integrated circuits, specializing in analyzing power consumption of the chips. To produce more efficient chips Azuro has developed a program called PowerCentric by concentrating on the clock network. In synchronous circuit designs all changes of state are coordinated by a clock, and this clock edge must be distributed to all parts of the chip. Since the clock signal is distributed throughout the entire circuit it can consume a large percentage of the energy used. Azuro's approach unifies the steps of clock gating and clock tree synthesis. Azuro has a patent pending on a technique it calls iCTS™ for doing this.
Three questions remain unanswered by any of the 'delete' supporters. 1) How is it that this company meets the requirements and Intellitech does not? 2) What usefulness does it hold to list Intellitech in other areas of the wikipedia (EDA companies) but not allow a simple, non-promotional definition? 3) If the definition of Notability from Wiki is: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. How is it given the prior references, that Intellitech fails this test? Jtagchair ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't see anything wrong with doing an article about all of NBC's slogans over the years. Individual articles about individual ad campaigns, however, are another matter. I'm sure that we all remember several different songs that we learned from commercials for McDonald's or Coca-Cola. But that doesn't mean that "You Deserve A Break Today" or "Coke Is It" deserves its own entry in the encyclopedia. And definitely not "Come home to (local NBC affilliate)" Mandsford ( talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove non-notable articles about television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Discussion of a move/re-name can continue at the article's talk page. Sancho 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Apart from the article being named incorrectly - it really isn't notable. The article doesn't assert the notability and is only about a WP:NN qualification tournament. Scarian Call me Pat 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. Prodego talk 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Claims of notability, but Just Another Non-notable MySpace Personality (tm). Corvus cornix talk 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Harry Potter fanfic character with 25 ghits, many of which are not in English and don't appear to relate to the subject. No apparent speedy category, so it's here. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. References do not establish notability. Claim of national recognition not supporterd by evidence. WWGB ( talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete , per nom. Tony the Marine ( talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm sure she's a lovely person, but.... Be best ( talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. krimpet ✽ 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NFT. PROD tag was removed by author. EJF ( talk) 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. No sources at all, no evidence of notability. No recognized label or charted songs. Not much of anything at all. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails to assert notability under WP:MUSIC. Has realeased only a handful of records on a small non-notable indie label but has no coverage in second party sources neonwhite user page talk 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Argument on their labels and records seems somewhat irrelevant; there are plenty of bands who've only released a few records on small labels that still have pages. It dosen't matter how many records or what labels they're on, because they still have popularity and are connected to several other notable bands. However, I agree that there aren't any refrences or sources on page; will add. Howl5 ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources (sorry, MySpace doesn't count), no evidence of signing by a major label or a song on a recognized chart. Article borders on fancruft. Only thread of notability I can find is that the band split off from another band with an article. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete.. Black Kite 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined A7 based on older version of the article. Previous out-of-process deletion (deleted as a revert when previous versions had content). Figured it should come here for scrutiny. Remaining neutral. - Revolving Bugbear 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The results ar for a movie, I find no evidence that this competition, when it existed, was notable. Travellingcari ( talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Should more information become available closer to the release date, I encourage User:TBrauns to recreate the article, making sure that only reliable sources are cited (this excludes iMDB). Spebi 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and future film guidelines. Film has not finished production, and only "source" is IMDB. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete by User:Alexf (CSD G11: Blatant advertising) non-admin close. — Travis talk 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article contains no information to show that the company is notable. Instead of creating a link to MLM, the article reexplains the concept which can be found in another entry. I did not delete that part because it makes up half the article's content. The ingredients are described from the marketing standpoint from the company. Instead of describing the ingredients as stated on the nutrion facts label without bias, it breaks it down on the reputation of a superfruit even as according to information gathered here, lychee is an alleged superfruit. the article is redundant on what the product is. If I delete it, there will be no content left. The company mentions a marketed compensation plan without clearly defining what type of network marketing it is. This is basically why I put this article for deletion. Holannakata ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per original author's request (below)combined with no significant contributions outside that author's work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable video game element. Sources cited have no info on the subject either. See also Wikipedia is not a (game) guide. hateless 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I totally agree with you. I am new to wiki so still learning all the things your not supposed to write but go ahead and delete it. It only took half hour to make so its not a big deal. February 10 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshValov ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
What is the Game Website?
JoshValov (
talk)
05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge... to be performed by an editor. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pageant decision. 2007 edition article was deleted at AFD.
Also nominating:
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business person whose main claim of notability seems to be a blog and a yet-to-be-released book. No significant independent coverage. Notability tag was added in October 2007 and removed two days later without significant additions by account who recently has been spamming Wikipedia with links to Skillings' website (with deceptive edit summaries). Possible WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues; editor who added the article is an WP:SPA. Torc2 ( talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school, and the 'article' is nothing more than a business card, Note also the infobox whose elementary school listings are nearly all redlinks from AfD/speedy deletions. No evidence of any notability Travellingcari ( talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. No sources given for any of this information. She returns 10 Google hits, none for the radio work. Metros ( talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. She returns 34 Google hits and not a single one proves notability or proves she's a radio presenter. Metros ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not much claim of meeting WP:Notability; 12 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. No sources in article that indicate notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
PS. Also Wikipedia:Autobiography issues. -- Fabrictramp ( talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete for lack of reliable independent sources. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article was speed'd twice. Non-notable software. Keeps coming back. Now it has three references, all are articles written by the developers. No independent third party references can be found. Looking for another delete with salt please. Gtstricky Talk or C 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
OK.. There is no need for salt here. So from what you said getting published does not count as a third party approval then. This is unfortunate... In this case, if you plan to delete it again, please at least leave it till Tuesday (US time) and I will either remove it, defend it or improve it. BTW how big is the user base to be considered as notable? Is there a guideline for the number in Wiki?
For the record, the second delete was done before I even finished writing the article. I don't know that you can't leave an article hanging for couple of hours. I took a break, went home and it was deleted before I finished my dinner. :( Glad to see people working hard on cleaning Wiki though. (This is a compliment not a sarcasm.) Please don't get a wrong idea, I'm not trying to spam Wiki here.
To EdJohnston: The an anonymous contributor, 75.60.173.151 who removed the notability tag was me, my login time expired so it didn't log my name.
Illuminated ( talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fmenczer ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Fmenczer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
-- Jjdonald ( talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)— Jjdonald ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary as stated throughout the discussion.-- JForget 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
As it stands, no more than a dicdef, and I can't see that it can be anything more. Already defined in Wiktionary. Emeraude ( talk) 13:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A search indicates that the concept of global remote sensing is notable but there's nothing to show that this company is in any way notable to pass WP:CORP. Although I can't find the source online to confirm copyright violation, the article is a blatant c/p from somewhere and without any information, this article cannot be encyclopedic. Travellingcari ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly redirected to Laser (dinghy) by User:Gtstricky, no need to keep discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page seems unfit for an encyclopedia. It is a just a random collection of information on a boat. The boat itself is not very important. It is an not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tcpe k i n 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Also undid the user talk redirect, thanks for the notice, Sting au. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 06:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Finishing incomplete nom by User:Kaiwhakahaere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted CSD G11 by User:Spebi. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect all to Triumphant Quartet. JERRY talk contribs 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There is some coverage, mainly naming the subject and his father's being in a band and band appearances. Nothing that he, or the award he won is notable. Also nominating the following related page because it's his father who also doesn't appear notable in any way:
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 -- pb30< talk> 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you're going to start an article, do it properly. Lee Stanley ( talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There were not multiple independent sources that give significant coverage of this subject. The references only confirmed the existence of the company, were internship postings, or were simply passing mentions in the context of another subject. Sanchom ( talk · contribs)
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. One WP:SPA ignored, arguments for deletion were valid. Arguments for keep were of the inherited notability variety, which are not deemed valid. JERRY talk contribs 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable law firm Excariver ( talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted - literally 2 google hits for this, both connected to this article. Just a schoolkid's waste of time. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable neologism. Contested prod. I wish I could make this fit a speedy category, but it's a stretch to do so. Fabrictramp ( talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced (by actual reliable sources) bio of a minor travel- guide writer, credited with the writing texts of house travel guides, not creating his own. His last actual book by his own hand was published by a vanity press. Calton | Talk 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was. Delete, with no prejudice or opinion about a possible new article titled Hand Rating System.
Per WP:NN. No media coverage found on Google, Google News, Yahoo! or MSN. Google hits are his own web site, this Wikipedia page (that was fast as the article was only created yesterday) and numerous forums, blogs and NN poker sites. All of the references in the article are his own web sites. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment. The Omaha point count system is known to some degree; I have never seen anyone refer to it for other games. I would immediately AFD an article on the point count system as it doesn't stand on its own. It's an invention of a person. A similar system can be found at Bill Chen#The Chen Formula. I strongly believe we should be consistent with things like this, so if the point count system is talked about, it should be in an article about Hutchison. If inventing the point count system doesn't make him notable, then neither is the system itself. One further note, the point count system is not very good, but its fame or notability is irrelevant to whether it stinks or not. At this point my contribution would be to weakly Keep but strongly oppose renaming. 2005 ( talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was that the majority of approval to Keep article.-- TrU Co 9311 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)}} reply
This article is redundant, all this information about the Scary Movies are found in the respective articles. The rest is practically trivia, and the plots are repetition of whats in the respective articles. TrU Co 9311 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Canaan -- JForget 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I made it clear to the author of this article that it must either be redirected to Canaan or deleted altogether, since there is no modern Canaan that is commonly referred to as "Canaan". Additionally, the article as it exists now is pointless, and the author has a history of using talk pages as forums about the topics. Since redirecting only results in reverting, Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a work in progress. ASEOR2 ( talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israel vs ancient canaan? Hello? There is no Ancient Israel if there is no Ancient Canaan. ASEOR2 ( talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted per CSD G12. Keilana| Parlez ici 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an advert for a blog host site open only for a few weeks, created by its owner. It is non-notable, commercial and unencyclopaedic. Karenjc ( talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay, I admit I sort of started this... The page's creator was mad that the page had gotten deleted, and told me that he or she was about to add sources to the page when it was nuked. I assumed good faith, and suggested that he or she re-create the page. However, the sources in this revision are all DeviantART and blogs, and therefore this page's subject fails WP:RS. Suggesting a salt this time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep
Just because you may have not heard of Pyong yourself, does not mean that it is not notable or not worth mentioning. Many people search after this information, and when people like you guys take it down, how are people supposed to find such things? The point of Wikipedia is to inform people, and give information. That is exactly what I am trying to do, I just want to inform people about the subject, and everyone else is acting like I am posting a page of random keystrokes.
If something from another culture it does not make it wrong. And if it is not familiar around you does not make it any less. Pyong is also from Portugal, but I think Americans should have to right to know about it too.
This is the only page I have ever added to wikipedia because I felt it was something very notable that Wikipedia lacked.
Just because something has originated on the internet and not from a book does not mean it is not valid.
I cannot understand why you are so against the addition of Pyong, I just want people to be informed. I am trying to help, while everyone else is trying to disable others access to information. If you cannot understand a language it does not make it a non-valid source. That borders on racism if you are going to devalue something based on it's culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoya-kun ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm tired of trying to argue this, everyone seems to be power hungry and trying to exert authority over something for no reason. If you think the content of the page is not full yet, that is the point of Wikipedia, people who know more will come along and add their intelligence as well. But they cannot do this if no page exists. Do what you want with the page, but think who are you actually helping? All you are doing is depriving people of information, and maybe feeding your ego, but nothing more. Good bye. Tomoya-kun ( talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Actually here in Italy many people use this emoticon on msn and not only, I have seen on my university people having stickers of that red fox and pins... That drawing seems to be well known in the japanmania subculture inItaly. Thus, being that fox so popular and recognisable, I believe the page shoud be kept but majorly revamped and cleaned-up Zisimos ( talk) 00:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I went and did research on the type of articles that Wikipedia will allow, is it possible to keep this article as a stub? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub Because according to everyone it is short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. Tomoya-kun ( talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I guess you guys are right. Just delete it then. But is there then another site I can post this information for people to find?
Tomoya-kun (
talk)
00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Apart from unreferenced claims about his role in the rise of internet radio and how well received his remixes are, this seems like a WP:VANITY article. JASpencer ( talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced-by-reliable-sources, promotional article -- created by its subject, natch -- of "music video & film maker". Essentially a listing of unlinked/external-linked credits -- unlinked for good reason. Speedy-tagged, but speedy tag removed --well, I'm not sure why. Calton | Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling ( talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD was contested on the grounds that sources were added, but the lack of sources had nothing to do with the PROD nomination. This is a personal essay, and most of its content duplicates English Civil War. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Consensus is clear, and the ArbCom injunction doesn't apply here because this is neither about a character nor about an episode. Mango juice talk 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
OR resulting from about five or so minutes of screen time. See words like "presumably", "suspected, "it is likely", "this may be unlikely"). The only actual confirmed member of the Six is Hurley, in actual fact. Anything else is pure OR. Will ( talk) 11:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability, already speedily deleted twice per A7, an IP has removed the prod Cenarium ( talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by yours truly, WP:CSD#G10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Neologism derived from the name of a Scottish politician. No asserted notability.
SAVE WENDIED. It is a commonly used term in the Scottish Media to describe being cynicaly manipulated by others using a script to extole the alleged good virtues of the benificiary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juankerr1 ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 14:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax. I prodded this a while ago, and someone else added a prod2. Both were removed by an IP editor with the summary "factual improvement". One google hit - a WP mirror. The article (and photos) appear to suggest that a Zambian child was given some kind of scholarship, left the country, then spontaneously turned into an elderly Rastafarian man, as well as into 2 completely different other people. Kateshort forbob 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This a deletion per WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPUNDEL. Deletion was made by MZMcBride ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'm housekeeping. :-) Maxim (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was previously deleted after AfD at Corey Delaney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and subsequently a new article was created and speedily deleted under the present name. The speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, and the article is resubmitted here for discussion whether the new sources sufficiently establish that the article is viable as a biography. Procedural nomination, I abstain (Procedural note: as a referral from WP:DRV, this nomination is outside the remit of WP:CSD). ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 13:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It doesn't matter who nominated the article for deletion as long as the community agree with the deletion, which it does. I do not see anything wrong with this nomination itself so it seems valid to me. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website. google hits 1000-ov. Asod123123 ( talk) 13:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable game Asod123123 ( talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Crystal balling, no reliable sources actually confirming a movie will actually be made. Even if there was, per WP:NFF, unless the development is significant, we don't start pages for films until they have at least entered production and there is coverage of the production. Any reliable sources rumoring a sequel should be listed on Freddy vs. Jason. Also, nothing new has changed since the last AfD, which was a unanimous "delete". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:AUTO WP:N Asod123123 ( talk) 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY REDIRECT to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
there is no need for this page / all links removed Silverxxx ( talk) 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nom witdrawn non-admin closure by -- Lenticel ( talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Cannot find a website for this school on Google — probably does not meet notability requirements. Also, the article has been tagged since November and not seen any substantial improvements since then. Lea ( talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Author removed PROD, saying "I believe this page to be of some importance and should be considered void from deletion". Delete because this is unreferenced, not notable and Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. JohnCD ( talk) 11:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No source to support he made his professional debut on Portuguese Liga, and his currently plays for Portuguese regional league, seems not yet a professional league. Matthew_hk t c 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. IF a good article can be written on Murder of Nona Dirksmeyer, then let is be so - this, however fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Black Kite 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Yet another article in the manner of MWWS. It is likely that the comments that follow will point out that her murder has umpteen Internet hits, therefore she MUST be notable. No indication of any real notability in her life. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Comment Definitely a case of MWWS. However the case does have significant media coverage. Mpondopondo ( talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SorryGuy Talk 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability Manik52 ( talk) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No notability. Black Kite 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
NN. Can't find any reliable sources to show her notability. Not sure if being in Perfect 10 is a claim of importance or notability for a speedy. Vinh1313 ( talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Agreed. One appearance in Perfect 10 does not make one notable Manik52 ( talk) 10:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
He seems to be only a regular academic professor. He only has a Master Degree (he doesn't have a Doctor Degree or PhD) and there are no independent sources showing his notability. In addition to these, his personal website seems to be auto promoting. Tosqueira ( talk) 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Germano Sanna, I would suggest another AfD should be open for the other two articles, as the notability does vary. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd have suggested a merge to either of his bands but I don't see evidence in any language that this guitarist (or his bands) meeting WP:BAND. I've added the bands for the same reason Travellingcari ( talk) 07:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Travellingcari ( talk) 07:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Germano Sanna and merge with bands. Does not appear to have been notable except in the bands. I think that the bands should be considered separately. Keep both bands. Snowman ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Germano Sanna and merge with bands. Keep the Suidakra article. They featured in at least Metal Hammer Magazine. Also several interviews ( example) can be found published online. -- Thorarin ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Self Promotion. This article is redirected from Law of One, an article that does not exist, but the link to the phrase has been used in the Edgar Cayce article in order to link to Rueckert's self promoting biography. You will also notice that she is a partner with David Wilcock whose entry has been deleted for self-promotion. Digging even slightly into this entry and the author's misuse of it will clearly indicate that the entry is being used for self-promotion and the promotion of L/L Research (also a deleted article), rather than to list the biography of a noteworthy person. StrangeAttractor ( talk) 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete All. Please see AfD talk for extended rationale. JERRY talk contribs 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedied multiple times; deleted at AfD as Johnny Castaneda Jr.. Previous consensus was subject fails WP:MUSIC. Suggest delete and liberal WP:SALT. Jfire ( talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. -- JForget 01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod tag removed; however, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unsourced and appears to be original research. KurtRaschke ( talk) 05:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No prejudice to recreation if sound references are found. Tyrenius ( talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An "American fine art photographer" (my emphasis), which for the uninitiated means that he takes care over his prints and offers them for sale at rather high prices. All well and good, but the article, written in a somewhat promotional style (and also idiosyncratically, with what are normally dependent clauses serving as full sentences) offers as sources for the claims only this or that page of dkeithfuron.com. True, there are three other "references". One of them, this, says that "Keith has authored and published six books among which the latest one has been nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Award". If so, perhaps he did so under a different name: amazon.com lists plenty of books by Raymond Furon but none by Keith; and the Library of Congress catalogue also lists nothing. Of the other two references, one is to a retailer of Furon's works and the other doesn't even mention him. Furon's own site says a little about him but doesn't claim that he has either had a single solo exhibition or put out a single book (he's merely contributed to a single book); there's also no link there to critical discussion. Googling reveals the usual humdrum stuff (myspace, etc.), but (at least until my patience ran out) nothing substantial. Claims for notability aren't verifiable. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Jmlk17, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I dont know what speedy deletion criterion this would fall under, so I brought it here. nn emoticon. Corvus cornix talk 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I do not know why you want this deleted, it is a valid article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoya-kun ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) — Tomoya-kun ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was speedy keep. the wub "?!" 12:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Very tragic, but kids get kidnapped every day, she's just not notable. Karaku ( talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Kubigula ( talk) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable biography. However, the article does cite a source, and the painter could be notable. Procedural nom. Keilana| Parlez ici 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak keep as per addition by Tyrenius [49], 2nd source and text addition means article is now 100% improved. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An apparently non-notable add-on to a videogame? Ghits are a mass of forum threads, but no evidence of any RS coverage. Official website is also a forum thread. Travellingcari ( talk) 05:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as non-notable people, however, the article does make a claim to notability and cites sources. Strictly a procedural nomination, I have no opinion either way. Keilana| Parlez ici 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep This article is about notable film makers. The article may need to be improved. But it should not be deleted. The Christianos have made a number of films and a TV series, which have articles in Wikipedia. This is a notable topic. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JBFrenchhorn (
talk •
contribs)
21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. DS ( talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article appears to be merely a dictionary definition, which conflicts with WP:NOT#DICT. — X S G 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree that being English co-champion in 2003 *might* pass WP:N, however I can find no evidence of this being the case: a newssearch brings up news of a footballer; qualifying ghits with skateboard turns up a lot of videos and forum posts, but no verifiability or anything that passes as an RS; qualifying with champion brings up more foums and video and the same footballer hits; 2003 champion champion 2003 doesn't help; nor does Windy One. In short, I can't find any evidence that backs up the article's claim, therefore, doesn't pass WP:N Travellingcari ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Tough call with some good arguments for deletion... but with such a high level of participation we can't ignore all of those keeps... the deletion policy advises to give the benefit of the doubt to keep, and the procedural concern raised about this AfD being nominated too soon after the last one is valid. JERRY talk contribs 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page was nominated for deletion before and barely survived. It doesn't meet notability, that's all I can say. Lady Galaxy 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7 Notability not asserted by Jmlk17 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Carom ( talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per DGG. No individual notability. Black Kite 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a bit of an odd AfD, I admit. The issue is not one of notability because there's absolutely no question this is a well-known program. The issue, apart from this article only mentioning how it applies at one school that's a part of the SUNY system is that it's completely state specific. A search gives you ~38K results of links to the individual programs. I think the only use for this page is a disambiguation of state-specific programs are ever added here. I don't think a one sentence 'article' without a link to the program's history, since that doesn't seem available is encyclopedic Travellingcari ( talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
ETA: You can search the history but that's also state specific. Travellingcari ( talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe this is a textbook case of not necessitating an entry per WP:ONEEVENT. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as nonsense and/or vandalism.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a hoax of some sort. Carom ( talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Abundant Life Church. Please note, I am not merging any content. If anyone is interested and needs to access the history of the original Jock James article, please ask on my talkpage or click here and then click history. Cheers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There has been some discussion about sources and this article coming here. The issue is he's probably well known locally but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC Travellingcari ( talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be entirely original research; a search indicates that this is a neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. RFerreira ( talk) 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This user played in the major leagues, but that seems to be all he did. Looking in google, all I find about him is stats. If he was notable, he would have at least some more info about him. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur soccer player. Sbowers3 ( talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, non-admin closure. Kakofonous ( talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not much more than a dictionary definition, with information like the entire second paragraph
Usually, the facility provides furniture, overhead projectors, stage lighting, and sound system by the provider. It is arranged for payment by the host. The number of people attending can vary from a few to some thousand.
that cannot really be sourced, as it is making such broad claims. Other articles on rooms, like bedroom, are much more encyclopedic and contain information that broadens the article's scope from just a definition, but not this one. Kakofonous ( talk) 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy talk 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An attempt to redirect to I Shoot You!, a film article which has been prodded as a suspected hoax; it seems to be a cross between a redirect and a disambiguation page. The creator has removed the prod, so I have brought it here. (See also I Shoot You! Part 2; {{hangon}} tags were added to these at creation - perhaps they have been previously deleted?) Kateshort forbob 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and if you wish to merge this article, please start a merge dicussion, as there is no consensus here to delete the article either way. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of Shrek 2. It is therefore a duplication of that article, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Some good suggestions were made relative to renaming or improving the article. These issues should be undertaken by interested editors but are not mandated by this AfD closure. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. -- Howard the Duck 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete. As previously agreed by Filipino Wikipedians that only notable barangays will have an article. Creating an article for 40000 barangays in the Philippines would be insane.
Starczamora (
talk)
04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
strong keep even small areas of british cities customarily stay, why shouldn't less Western places be the same? Merkinsmum 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Dave Foley. Anything that needs to be merged in can be put there. Black Kite 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Child actress with two roles, now unemployed because she was fired from Days after a month, nothing notable. First role is 2 episodes on a cancelled show and the second role was a month long role on Days of our Lives and the character has now been written off and the actress fired. A month in show business is not notable enough for a biographic entry. She fails to meet all WP:NOTE for biographies to warrant a page. Her information could easily go on her father's page rather than on its own page. KellyAna ( talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferencede specutation about a suuposed russian spec ops by alleged former candidate `' Míkka >t 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaskad (2 nomination), about a text of the same quality and authorship .
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable software with most ghits concerning how to use it. Travellingcari ( talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete - A7 and G10 — ERcheck ( talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Person does not seem to meet established notability guidelines. Carom ( talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Punkmorten ( talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not asserted for person. Zero pages link there, and article was only created right after death. Prod was removed with no improvement. There are very few google hits. Reywas92 Talk 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 05:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
As discussed in her father's Afd, there is no evidence of her passing WP:N as relationship with a notable person does not convey notability. She died young, was not first lady, and I find no evidence of her being notable for any other reason. Travellingcari ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure a church would fall under the guidelines of WP:CORP but there is no evidence of this church's notability. Valley Forge? Sure but not this particular church. Not even according to its own website. I don't even really know of an appropriate merge/redirect as nothing links to it. Travellingcari ( talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
unnotable college football player brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable film extra. This is the listing on IMDB for that name. While it's possible he was in Clerks (he would have been under 3 at the time), he doesn't appear in the IMDB credits for Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob... or Clerks 2. A search of the View Askew website and a general Google search turns up nothing relevant. He apparently will not graduate from high school for another 3 years, and this article seems aspirational at best, inaccurate at worst. Kateshort forbob 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable hockey player. Canuck85 ( talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable program and/or group. Jmlk 1 7 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Any editor who wishes in good faith for a copy of the deleted article for the purposes of determination whether this content can be merged elsewhere is welcome to ask at my talk page. Such a merge would require the article to be restored and redirected for continuation of GFDL attribution. JERRY talk contribs 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only 10 hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like or unrelated which strongly indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy ( talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence that any of these claims are true. Even if they turn out to be, they should go away until an album is actually released, and notability can be properly established. Carom ( talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Already merged. Black Kite 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Merged into Judge and Bruiser (mascots) → Wordbuilder ( talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nothing suggests article needs to be deleted, suggest a merge discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is another in-universe plot repetition article without any referencing or notability, and all of this information is already covered in greater detail in the Shrek 2 and 3 articles, and is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and protect against recreation. Deleted five times by five different admins ( Postdlf, Nohat, NawlinWiki, Oxymoron83, and most recently Jimfbleak) under WP:CSD#A7, no claim of notability. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No importance. Thebluesharpdude ( talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. -- Howard the Duck 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
More Below
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A LaTeX class (in other words a stylesheet) for a specific university is not notable. SJK ( talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was deleted as nonsense a long time before this AFD was submitted. Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Goof Gas Attack ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I just review history. Becuase the history part was a speedy deletion that it wouldn't be a good article. IF you it was edited by users. That mean I view history. Only this logs was a speedy deletion part of this. Decied to edit this page again. It sould be deleted. Only view history of this page. If you can't view history of pages. Only exist with new results. It was deleted. I cannot read this page soon it was deleted. IF these users create a page again. They will be blocked. Using without to much categories. You already in the Wikipedia. It was waited for nonsesne review articles. Becuase i add {{
db-nonsense}}
and viewed history.--
JGJGJGJGJGJG (
talk)
17:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Of doubtful notability. Has been completely unsourced for many months now. The very model of a minor general ( talk) 14:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep Ryan Postlethwaite 16:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Intellitech. Was speedied under WP:CSD#A7. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 16:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the feedback, I can see from your point the account is an SPA account. Probably should of added other contributions first. It is interesting that other EDA companies have similar entries that are allowed. I previously pointed out Azuro. Only recently on Jan 30,2008 do they appear on new.google.com. To meet that particular criteria, a TMCnet article picked up their press release. I can't explain why Intellitech doesn't show up in news.google.com as it does appear on TMCNet in numerous places [ [3]]. TMW www.tmworld.com magazine regularly run articles on the company's technology, including cover articles, and three best-in-test awards in the last four years.
The company is listed in Wiki List of EDA companies and was not included in that list by me. I tried to update that informatuon and it was deleted as well. Apparently the editors would rather have that entry with a incomplete ? than the information I supplied. That's a bit confusing.
There's not much I can do if you choose to delete it. I thank you for the opportunity to try working with Wikipedia. Jtagchair ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Further, Intellitech appears in the Wiki Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies [4]. The entry for Intellitech is an attempt to add completeness to the Wikipedia for companies that appear in other areas of the Wikipedia. It seems odd that entries in Wikipedia that include Intellitech are accepted but to define the word/company beyond the entry is not acceptable. I'm new to this, so perhaps there is some bigger picture I am not seeing that would make that contradiction more logical. Jtagchair ( talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
From the best I can understand, the primary WP:CORP requirement is 'noteworthy'. As prior pointed out, the company name appears in two other Wiki locations, however without the appropriate information and link. Further, Test & Measurement World Magazine (hard copy and online) is the premier source of electronic information in the industry. It' editors have chosen Intellitech products for a Best-in-Test award for three years (one is here: [5] ) The magazine featured an Intellitech customer and Intellitech technology as its cover story last summer. [6] This is not an article submitted or created by the company. Jtagchair ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-press release related coverage of Intellitech by FPGA Journal [7] Jtagchair ( talk) 11:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Gavin, in case you didn't have time to read the above, this second source was given http://www.tmworld.com/article/CA6447662.html and this one: http://www.fpgajournal.com/articles_2007/20070612_roux.htm Jtagchair ( talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
XSG, OK. I wasn't aware that the references should be in the wiki for Intellitech. I'll take a stab at doing that. Thanks for the constructive feedback and help for the novice as to what needs to be done. Jtagchair ( talk) 21:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dear Gavin and XSG, Please note I have frequently given [Azuro] as an example of a company in our EDA industry, which appears in Wiki but did not meet the same scrutiny as Intellitech. It does not have the second sources listed in the article nor do they exsist other than press releases. We should be even handed across the board. Further, the type of article here in wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Electronic_design_automation_companies should not be included wiki if you are not interested in having the companies listed there be in Wiki either. Jtagchair ( talk) 21:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
XSG, I added the notable references to the article. Seems that it reads more 'promotional'though which may offend someone. Jtagchair ( talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your input, but it does meet the guidelines of WD:CORP. Please explain all how fellow companies in EDA are acceptable to Wiki and Intellitech is not. Here is Azuro's wiki page, I'm including it since no one is looking at it.
Azuro, Inc. is an electronic design automation (EDA) software company. It is headquartered in Santa Clara, California with a development office in Cambridge, UK.
Azuro develops software for the design of integrated circuits, specializing in analyzing power consumption of the chips. To produce more efficient chips Azuro has developed a program called PowerCentric by concentrating on the clock network. In synchronous circuit designs all changes of state are coordinated by a clock, and this clock edge must be distributed to all parts of the chip. Since the clock signal is distributed throughout the entire circuit it can consume a large percentage of the energy used. Azuro's approach unifies the steps of clock gating and clock tree synthesis. Azuro has a patent pending on a technique it calls iCTS™ for doing this.
Three questions remain unanswered by any of the 'delete' supporters. 1) How is it that this company meets the requirements and Intellitech does not? 2) What usefulness does it hold to list Intellitech in other areas of the wikipedia (EDA companies) but not allow a simple, non-promotional definition? 3) If the definition of Notability from Wiki is: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. How is it given the prior references, that Intellitech fails this test? Jtagchair ( talk) 19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't see anything wrong with doing an article about all of NBC's slogans over the years. Individual articles about individual ad campaigns, however, are another matter. I'm sure that we all remember several different songs that we learned from commercials for McDonald's or Coca-Cola. But that doesn't mean that "You Deserve A Break Today" or "Coke Is It" deserves its own entry in the encyclopedia. And definitely not "Come home to (local NBC affilliate)" Mandsford ( talk) 01:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove articles about non-notable television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge into NBC slogans, done at User:Some Person/NBC slogans. Neıl ☎ 15:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is part of an effort to remove non-notable articles about television network promotional slogans. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watched By More Americans Than Any Other Network for the original nomination in the series. Gladys J Cortez 20:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Discussion of a move/re-name can continue at the article's talk page. Sancho 17:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Apart from the article being named incorrectly - it really isn't notable. The article doesn't assert the notability and is only about a WP:NN qualification tournament. Scarian Call me Pat 20:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. Prodego talk 23:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Claims of notability, but Just Another Non-notable MySpace Personality (tm). Corvus cornix talk 23:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Harry Potter fanfic character with 25 ghits, many of which are not in English and don't appear to relate to the subject. No apparent speedy category, so it's here. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)• (contribs) 23:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. References do not establish notability. Claim of national recognition not supporterd by evidence. WWGB ( talk) 22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete , per nom. Tony the Marine ( talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. I'm sure she's a lovely person, but.... Be best ( talk) 12:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. krimpet ✽ 03:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:NFT. PROD tag was removed by author. EJF ( talk) 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- Anthony.bradbury "talk" 15:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, fails WP:BAND. No sources at all, no evidence of notability. No recognized label or charted songs. Not much of anything at all. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 22:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 13:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails to assert notability under WP:MUSIC. Has realeased only a handful of records on a small non-notable indie label but has no coverage in second party sources neonwhite user page talk 22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Argument on their labels and records seems somewhat irrelevant; there are plenty of bands who've only released a few records on small labels that still have pages. It dosen't matter how many records or what labels they're on, because they still have popularity and are connected to several other notable bands. However, I agree that there aren't any refrences or sources on page; will add. Howl5 ( talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources (sorry, MySpace doesn't count), no evidence of signing by a major label or a song on a recognized chart. Article borders on fancruft. Only thread of notability I can find is that the band split off from another band with an article. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete.. Black Kite 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Declined A7 based on older version of the article. Previous out-of-process deletion (deleted as a revert when previous versions had content). Figured it should come here for scrutiny. Remaining neutral. - Revolving Bugbear 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The results ar for a movie, I find no evidence that this competition, when it existed, was notable. Travellingcari ( talk) 22:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Should more information become available closer to the release date, I encourage User:TBrauns to recreate the article, making sure that only reliable sources are cited (this excludes iMDB). Spebi 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CRYSTAL and future film guidelines. Film has not finished production, and only "source" is IMDB. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete by User:Alexf (CSD G11: Blatant advertising) non-admin close. — Travis talk 00:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article contains no information to show that the company is notable. Instead of creating a link to MLM, the article reexplains the concept which can be found in another entry. I did not delete that part because it makes up half the article's content. The ingredients are described from the marketing standpoint from the company. Instead of describing the ingredients as stated on the nutrion facts label without bias, it breaks it down on the reputation of a superfruit even as according to information gathered here, lychee is an alleged superfruit. the article is redundant on what the product is. If I delete it, there will be no content left. The company mentions a marketed compensation plan without clearly defining what type of network marketing it is. This is basically why I put this article for deletion. Holannakata ( talk) 21:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per original author's request (below)combined with no significant contributions outside that author's work. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable video game element. Sources cited have no info on the subject either. See also Wikipedia is not a (game) guide. hateless 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I totally agree with you. I am new to wiki so still learning all the things your not supposed to write but go ahead and delete it. It only took half hour to make so its not a big deal. February 10 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshValov ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
What is the Game Website?
JoshValov (
talk)
05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge... to be performed by an editor. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable pageant decision. 2007 edition article was deleted at AFD.
Also nominating:
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable business person whose main claim of notability seems to be a blog and a yet-to-be-released book. No significant independent coverage. Notability tag was added in October 2007 and removed two days later without significant additions by account who recently has been spamming Wikipedia with links to Skillings' website (with deceptive edit summaries). Possible WP:COI and WP:ADVERT issues; editor who added the article is an WP:SPA. Torc2 ( talk) 21:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable elementary school, and the 'article' is nothing more than a business card, Note also the infobox whose elementary school listings are nearly all redlinks from AfD/speedy deletions. No evidence of any notability Travellingcari ( talk) 20:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. No sources given for any of this information. She returns 10 Google hits, none for the radio work. Metros ( talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable individual. She returns 34 Google hits and not a single one proves notability or proves she's a radio presenter. Metros ( talk) 20:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not much claim of meeting WP:Notability; 12 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notability. No sources in article that indicate notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
PS. Also Wikipedia:Autobiography issues. -- Fabrictramp ( talk) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete for lack of reliable independent sources. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Article was speed'd twice. Non-notable software. Keeps coming back. Now it has three references, all are articles written by the developers. No independent third party references can be found. Looking for another delete with salt please. Gtstricky Talk or C 20:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
OK.. There is no need for salt here. So from what you said getting published does not count as a third party approval then. This is unfortunate... In this case, if you plan to delete it again, please at least leave it till Tuesday (US time) and I will either remove it, defend it or improve it. BTW how big is the user base to be considered as notable? Is there a guideline for the number in Wiki?
For the record, the second delete was done before I even finished writing the article. I don't know that you can't leave an article hanging for couple of hours. I took a break, went home and it was deleted before I finished my dinner. :( Glad to see people working hard on cleaning Wiki though. (This is a compliment not a sarcasm.) Please don't get a wrong idea, I'm not trying to spam Wiki here.
To EdJohnston: The an anonymous contributor, 75.60.173.151 who removed the notability tag was me, my login time expired so it didn't log my name.
Illuminated ( talk) 22:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fmenczer ( talk) 01:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) — Fmenczer ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
-- Jjdonald ( talk) 01:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)— Jjdonald ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary as stated throughout the discussion.-- JForget 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
As it stands, no more than a dicdef, and I can't see that it can be anything more. Already defined in Wiktionary. Emeraude ( talk) 13:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A search indicates that the concept of global remote sensing is notable but there's nothing to show that this company is in any way notable to pass WP:CORP. Although I can't find the source online to confirm copyright violation, the article is a blatant c/p from somewhere and without any information, this article cannot be encyclopedic. Travellingcari ( talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly redirected to Laser (dinghy) by User:Gtstricky, no need to keep discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page seems unfit for an encyclopedia. It is a just a random collection of information on a boat. The boat itself is not very important. It is an not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tcpe k i n 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Also undid the user talk redirect, thanks for the notice, Sting au. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 06:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Finishing incomplete nom by User:Kaiwhakahaere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted CSD G11 by User:Spebi. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 12:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect all to Triumphant Quartet. JERRY talk contribs 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There is some coverage, mainly naming the subject and his father's being in a band and band appearances. Nothing that he, or the award he won is notable. Also nominating the following related page because it's his father who also doesn't appear notable in any way:
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 -- pb30< talk> 21:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you're going to start an article, do it properly. Lee Stanley ( talk) 19:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There were not multiple independent sources that give significant coverage of this subject. The references only confirmed the existence of the company, were internship postings, or were simply passing mentions in the context of another subject. Sanchom ( talk · contribs)
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. One WP:SPA ignored, arguments for deletion were valid. Arguments for keep were of the inherited notability variety, which are not deemed valid. JERRY talk contribs 03:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable law firm Excariver ( talk) 19:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable company Excariver ( talk) 19:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted - literally 2 google hits for this, both connected to this article. Just a schoolkid's waste of time. ~ Riana ⁂ 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely non-notable neologism. Contested prod. I wish I could make this fit a speedy category, but it's a stretch to do so. Fabrictramp ( talk) 19:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. --Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced (by actual reliable sources) bio of a minor travel- guide writer, credited with the writing texts of house travel guides, not creating his own. His last actual book by his own hand was published by a vanity press. Calton | Talk 19:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was. Delete, with no prejudice or opinion about a possible new article titled Hand Rating System.
Per WP:NN. No media coverage found on Google, Google News, Yahoo! or MSN. Google hits are his own web site, this Wikipedia page (that was fast as the article was only created yesterday) and numerous forums, blogs and NN poker sites. All of the references in the article are his own web sites. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 18:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment. The Omaha point count system is known to some degree; I have never seen anyone refer to it for other games. I would immediately AFD an article on the point count system as it doesn't stand on its own. It's an invention of a person. A similar system can be found at Bill Chen#The Chen Formula. I strongly believe we should be consistent with things like this, so if the point count system is talked about, it should be in an article about Hutchison. If inventing the point count system doesn't make him notable, then neither is the system itself. One further note, the point count system is not very good, but its fame or notability is irrelevant to whether it stinks or not. At this point my contribution would be to weakly Keep but strongly oppose renaming. 2005 ( talk) 21:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was that the majority of approval to Keep article.-- TrU Co 9311 15:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)}} reply
This article is redundant, all this information about the Scary Movies are found in the respective articles. The rest is practically trivia, and the plots are repetition of whats in the respective articles. TrU Co 9311 17:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Canaan -- JForget 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I made it clear to the author of this article that it must either be redirected to Canaan or deleted altogether, since there is no modern Canaan that is commonly referred to as "Canaan". Additionally, the article as it exists now is pointless, and the author has a history of using talk pages as forums about the topics. Since redirecting only results in reverting, Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a work in progress. ASEOR2 ( talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Israel vs ancient canaan? Hello? There is no Ancient Israel if there is no Ancient Canaan. ASEOR2 ( talk) 21:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted per CSD G12. Keilana| Parlez ici 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an advert for a blog host site open only for a few weeks, created by its owner. It is non-notable, commercial and unencyclopaedic. Karenjc ( talk) 16:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Okay, I admit I sort of started this... The page's creator was mad that the page had gotten deleted, and told me that he or she was about to add sources to the page when it was nuked. I assumed good faith, and suggested that he or she re-create the page. However, the sources in this revision are all DeviantART and blogs, and therefore this page's subject fails WP:RS. Suggesting a salt this time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep
Just because you may have not heard of Pyong yourself, does not mean that it is not notable or not worth mentioning. Many people search after this information, and when people like you guys take it down, how are people supposed to find such things? The point of Wikipedia is to inform people, and give information. That is exactly what I am trying to do, I just want to inform people about the subject, and everyone else is acting like I am posting a page of random keystrokes.
If something from another culture it does not make it wrong. And if it is not familiar around you does not make it any less. Pyong is also from Portugal, but I think Americans should have to right to know about it too.
This is the only page I have ever added to wikipedia because I felt it was something very notable that Wikipedia lacked.
Just because something has originated on the internet and not from a book does not mean it is not valid.
I cannot understand why you are so against the addition of Pyong, I just want people to be informed. I am trying to help, while everyone else is trying to disable others access to information. If you cannot understand a language it does not make it a non-valid source. That borders on racism if you are going to devalue something based on it's culture.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoya-kun ( talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm tired of trying to argue this, everyone seems to be power hungry and trying to exert authority over something for no reason. If you think the content of the page is not full yet, that is the point of Wikipedia, people who know more will come along and add their intelligence as well. But they cannot do this if no page exists. Do what you want with the page, but think who are you actually helping? All you are doing is depriving people of information, and maybe feeding your ego, but nothing more. Good bye. Tomoya-kun ( talk) 22:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Actually here in Italy many people use this emoticon on msn and not only, I have seen on my university people having stickers of that red fox and pins... That drawing seems to be well known in the japanmania subculture inItaly. Thus, being that fox so popular and recognisable, I believe the page shoud be kept but majorly revamped and cleaned-up Zisimos ( talk) 00:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I went and did research on the type of articles that Wikipedia will allow, is it possible to keep this article as a stub? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Stub Because according to everyone it is short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information. Tomoya-kun ( talk) 23:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I guess you guys are right. Just delete it then. But is there then another site I can post this information for people to find?
Tomoya-kun (
talk)
00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Apart from unreferenced claims about his role in the rise of internet radio and how well received his remixes are, this seems like a WP:VANITY article. JASpencer ( talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced-by-reliable-sources, promotional article -- created by its subject, natch -- of "music video & film maker". Essentially a listing of unlinked/external-linked credits -- unlinked for good reason. Speedy-tagged, but speedy tag removed --well, I'm not sure why. Calton | Talk 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling ( talk) 22:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD was contested on the grounds that sources were added, but the lack of sources had nothing to do with the PROD nomination. This is a personal essay, and most of its content duplicates English Civil War. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 15:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. Consensus is clear, and the ArbCom injunction doesn't apply here because this is neither about a character nor about an episode. Mango juice talk 18:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
OR resulting from about five or so minutes of screen time. See words like "presumably", "suspected, "it is likely", "this may be unlikely"). The only actual confirmed member of the Six is Hurley, in actual fact. Anything else is pure OR. Will ( talk) 11:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability, already speedily deleted twice per A7, an IP has removed the prod Cenarium ( talk) 14:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by yours truly, WP:CSD#G10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Neologism derived from the name of a Scottish politician. No asserted notability.
SAVE WENDIED. It is a commonly used term in the Scottish Media to describe being cynicaly manipulated by others using a script to extole the alleged good virtues of the benificiary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juankerr1 ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 02:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 14:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax. I prodded this a while ago, and someone else added a prod2. Both were removed by an IP editor with the summary "factual improvement". One google hit - a WP mirror. The article (and photos) appear to suggest that a Zambian child was given some kind of scholarship, left the country, then spontaneously turned into an elderly Rastafarian man, as well as into 2 completely different other people. Kateshort forbob 13:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This a deletion per WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLPUNDEL. Deletion was made by MZMcBride ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'm housekeeping. :-) Maxim (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was previously deleted after AfD at Corey Delaney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and subsequently a new article was created and speedily deleted under the present name. The speedy deletion was overturned at deletion review, and the article is resubmitted here for discussion whether the new sources sufficiently establish that the article is viable as a biography. Procedural nomination, I abstain (Procedural note: as a referral from WP:DRV, this nomination is outside the remit of WP:CSD). ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 13:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. It doesn't matter who nominated the article for deletion as long as the community agree with the deletion, which it does. I do not see anything wrong with this nomination itself so it seems valid to me. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 23:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable website Asod123123 ( talk) 13:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable website. google hits 1000-ov. Asod123123 ( talk) 13:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete non notable game Asod123123 ( talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Crystal balling, no reliable sources actually confirming a movie will actually be made. Even if there was, per WP:NFF, unless the development is significant, we don't start pages for films until they have at least entered production and there is coverage of the production. Any reliable sources rumoring a sequel should be listed on Freddy vs. Jason. Also, nothing new has changed since the last AfD, which was a unanimous "delete". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:AUTO WP:N Asod123123 ( talk) 13:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY REDIRECT to List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. - ✰ ALLSTAR✰ echo 22:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
there is no need for this page / all links removed Silverxxx ( talk) 12:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nom witdrawn non-admin closure by -- Lenticel ( talk) 23:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Cannot find a website for this school on Google — probably does not meet notability requirements. Also, the article has been tagged since November and not seen any substantial improvements since then. Lea ( talk) 10:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 07:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Author removed PROD, saying "I believe this page to be of some importance and should be considered void from deletion". Delete because this is unreferenced, not notable and Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. JohnCD ( talk) 11:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No source to support he made his professional debut on Portuguese Liga, and his currently plays for Portuguese regional league, seems not yet a professional league. Matthew_hk t c 11:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. IF a good article can be written on Murder of Nona Dirksmeyer, then let is be so - this, however fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Black Kite 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete. Yet another article in the manner of MWWS. It is likely that the comments that follow will point out that her murder has umpteen Internet hits, therefore she MUST be notable. No indication of any real notability in her life. WWGB ( talk) 10:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Comment Definitely a case of MWWS. However the case does have significant media coverage. Mpondopondo ( talk) 03:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. SorryGuy Talk 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability Manik52 ( talk) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No notability. Black Kite 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
NN. Can't find any reliable sources to show her notability. Not sure if being in Perfect 10 is a claim of importance or notability for a speedy. Vinh1313 ( talk) 08:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Agreed. One appearance in Perfect 10 does not make one notable Manik52 ( talk) 10:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
He seems to be only a regular academic professor. He only has a Master Degree (he doesn't have a Doctor Degree or PhD) and there are no independent sources showing his notability. In addition to these, his personal website seems to be auto promoting. Tosqueira ( talk) 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Germano Sanna, I would suggest another AfD should be open for the other two articles, as the notability does vary. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 09:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'd have suggested a merge to either of his bands but I don't see evidence in any language that this guitarist (or his bands) meeting WP:BAND. I've added the bands for the same reason Travellingcari ( talk) 07:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Travellingcari ( talk) 07:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Germano Sanna and merge with bands. Does not appear to have been notable except in the bands. I think that the bands should be considered separately. Keep both bands. Snowman ( talk) 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Germano Sanna and merge with bands. Keep the Suidakra article. They featured in at least Metal Hammer Magazine. Also several interviews ( example) can be found published online. -- Thorarin ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Self Promotion. This article is redirected from Law of One, an article that does not exist, but the link to the phrase has been used in the Edgar Cayce article in order to link to Rueckert's self promoting biography. You will also notice that she is a partner with David Wilcock whose entry has been deleted for self-promotion. Digging even slightly into this entry and the author's misuse of it will clearly indicate that the entry is being used for self-promotion and the promotion of L/L Research (also a deleted article), rather than to list the biography of a noteworthy person. StrangeAttractor ( talk) 06:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete All. Please see AfD talk for extended rationale. JERRY talk contribs 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedied multiple times; deleted at AfD as Johnny Castaneda Jr.. Previous consensus was subject fails WP:MUSIC. Suggest delete and liberal WP:SALT. Jfire ( talk) 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE. -- JForget 01:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod tag removed; however, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Unsourced and appears to be original research. KurtRaschke ( talk) 05:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No prejudice to recreation if sound references are found. Tyrenius ( talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An "American fine art photographer" (my emphasis), which for the uninitiated means that he takes care over his prints and offers them for sale at rather high prices. All well and good, but the article, written in a somewhat promotional style (and also idiosyncratically, with what are normally dependent clauses serving as full sentences) offers as sources for the claims only this or that page of dkeithfuron.com. True, there are three other "references". One of them, this, says that "Keith has authored and published six books among which the latest one has been nominated for the prestigious Pulitzer Award". If so, perhaps he did so under a different name: amazon.com lists plenty of books by Raymond Furon but none by Keith; and the Library of Congress catalogue also lists nothing. Of the other two references, one is to a retailer of Furon's works and the other doesn't even mention him. Furon's own site says a little about him but doesn't claim that he has either had a single solo exhibition or put out a single book (he's merely contributed to a single book); there's also no link there to critical discussion. Googling reveals the usual humdrum stuff (myspace, etc.), but (at least until my patience ran out) nothing substantial. Claims for notability aren't verifiable. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete by User:Jmlk17, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 05:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I dont know what speedy deletion criterion this would fall under, so I brought it here. nn emoticon. Corvus cornix talk 05:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I do not know why you want this deleted, it is a valid article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoya-kun ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) — Tomoya-kun ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was speedy keep. the wub "?!" 12:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Very tragic, but kids get kidnapped every day, she's just not notable. Karaku ( talk) 05:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.-- Kubigula ( talk) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable biography. However, the article does cite a source, and the painter could be notable. Procedural nom. Keilana| Parlez ici 05:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Weak keep as per addition by Tyrenius [49], 2nd source and text addition means article is now 100% improved. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 17:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 09:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An apparently non-notable add-on to a videogame? Ghits are a mass of forum threads, but no evidence of any RS coverage. Official website is also a forum thread. Travellingcari ( talk) 05:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for speedy as non-notable people, however, the article does make a claim to notability and cites sources. Strictly a procedural nomination, I have no opinion either way. Keilana| Parlez ici 05:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep This article is about notable film makers. The article may need to be improved. But it should not be deleted. The Christianos have made a number of films and a TV series, which have articles in Wikipedia. This is a notable topic. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
JBFrenchhorn (
talk •
contribs)
21:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. DS ( talk) 17:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article appears to be merely a dictionary definition, which conflicts with WP:NOT#DICT. — X S G 04:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree that being English co-champion in 2003 *might* pass WP:N, however I can find no evidence of this being the case: a newssearch brings up news of a footballer; qualifying ghits with skateboard turns up a lot of videos and forum posts, but no verifiability or anything that passes as an RS; qualifying with champion brings up more foums and video and the same footballer hits; 2003 champion champion 2003 doesn't help; nor does Windy One. In short, I can't find any evidence that backs up the article's claim, therefore, doesn't pass WP:N Travellingcari ( talk) 04:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Tough call with some good arguments for deletion... but with such a high level of participation we can't ignore all of those keeps... the deletion policy advises to give the benefit of the doubt to keep, and the procedural concern raised about this AfD being nominated too soon after the last one is valid. JERRY talk contribs 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page was nominated for deletion before and barely survived. It doesn't meet notability, that's all I can say. Lady Galaxy 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete A7 Notability not asserted by Jmlk17 ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 03:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Carom ( talk) 03:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per DGG. No individual notability. Black Kite 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a bit of an odd AfD, I admit. The issue is not one of notability because there's absolutely no question this is a well-known program. The issue, apart from this article only mentioning how it applies at one school that's a part of the SUNY system is that it's completely state specific. A search gives you ~38K results of links to the individual programs. I think the only use for this page is a disambiguation of state-specific programs are ever added here. I don't think a one sentence 'article' without a link to the program's history, since that doesn't seem available is encyclopedic Travellingcari ( talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
ETA: You can search the history but that's also state specific. Travellingcari ( talk) 22:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe this is a textbook case of not necessitating an entry per WP:ONEEVENT. — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as nonsense and/or vandalism.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a hoax of some sort. Carom ( talk) 02:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Abundant Life Church. Please note, I am not merging any content. If anyone is interested and needs to access the history of the original Jock James article, please ask on my talkpage or click here and then click history. Cheers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There has been some discussion about sources and this article coming here. The issue is he's probably well known locally but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC Travellingcari ( talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be entirely original research; a search indicates that this is a neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. RFerreira ( talk) 18:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This user played in the major leagues, but that seems to be all he did. Looking in google, all I find about him is stats. If he was notable, he would have at least some more info about him. Soxred93 | talk count bot 02:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 08:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable amateur soccer player. Sbowers3 ( talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, non-admin closure. Kakofonous ( talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not much more than a dictionary definition, with information like the entire second paragraph
Usually, the facility provides furniture, overhead projectors, stage lighting, and sound system by the provider. It is arranged for payment by the host. The number of people attending can vary from a few to some thousand.
that cannot really be sourced, as it is making such broad claims. Other articles on rooms, like bedroom, are much more encyclopedic and contain information that broadens the article's scope from just a definition, but not this one. Kakofonous ( talk) 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted. IrishGuy talk 01:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An attempt to redirect to I Shoot You!, a film article which has been prodded as a suspected hoax; it seems to be a cross between a redirect and a disambiguation page. The creator has removed the prod, so I have brought it here. (See also I Shoot You! Part 2; {{hangon}} tags were added to these at creation - perhaps they have been previously deleted?) Kateshort forbob 01:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep and if you wish to merge this article, please start a merge dicussion, as there is no consensus here to delete the article either way. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of Shrek 2. It is therefore a duplication of that article, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 01:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete copyright violation. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Some good suggestions were made relative to renaming or improving the article. These issues should be undertaken by interested editors but are not mandated by this AfD closure. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. -- Howard the Duck 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
*Delete. As previously agreed by Filipino Wikipedians that only notable barangays will have an article. Creating an article for 40000 barangays in the Philippines would be insane.
Starczamora (
talk)
04:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
strong keep even small areas of british cities customarily stay, why shouldn't less Western places be the same? Merkinsmum 01:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Dave Foley. Anything that needs to be merged in can be put there. Black Kite 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Child actress with two roles, now unemployed because she was fired from Days after a month, nothing notable. First role is 2 episodes on a cancelled show and the second role was a month long role on Days of our Lives and the character has now been written off and the actress fired. A month in show business is not notable enough for a biographic entry. She fails to meet all WP:NOTE for biographies to warrant a page. Her information could easily go on her father's page rather than on its own page. KellyAna ( talk) 01:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferencede specutation about a suuposed russian spec ops by alleged former candidate `' Míkka >t 01:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaskad (2 nomination), about a text of the same quality and authorship .
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable software with most ghits concerning how to use it. Travellingcari ( talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete - A7 and G10 — ERcheck ( talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Person does not seem to meet established notability guidelines. Carom ( talk) 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Punkmorten ( talk) 06:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not asserted for person. Zero pages link there, and article was only created right after death. Prod was removed with no improvement. There are very few google hits. Reywas92 Talk 00:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Kubigula ( talk) 05:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 00:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
As discussed in her father's Afd, there is no evidence of her passing WP:N as relationship with a notable person does not convey notability. She died young, was not first lady, and I find no evidence of her being notable for any other reason. Travellingcari ( talk) 00:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Ryan Postlethwaite 16:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure a church would fall under the guidelines of WP:CORP but there is no evidence of this church's notability. Valley Forge? Sure but not this particular church. Not even according to its own website. I don't even really know of an appropriate merge/redirect as nothing links to it. Travellingcari ( talk) 00:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Spebi 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
unnotable college football player brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unnotable film extra. This is the listing on IMDB for that name. While it's possible he was in Clerks (he would have been under 3 at the time), he doesn't appear in the IMDB credits for Clerks, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob... or Clerks 2. A search of the View Askew website and a general Google search turns up nothing relevant. He apparently will not graduate from high school for another 3 years, and this article seems aspirational at best, inaccurate at worst. Kateshort forbob 00:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable hockey player. Canuck85 ( talk) 07:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep -- JForget 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable program and/or group. Jmlk 1 7 03:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Any editor who wishes in good faith for a copy of the deleted article for the purposes of determination whether this content can be merged elsewhere is welcome to ask at my talk page. Such a merge would require the article to be restored and redirected for continuation of GFDL attribution. JERRY talk contribs 03:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article consists almost entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which breaks WP:NOT#PLOT, and has no secondary sources to indicate notability per WP:FICT. Google returns only 10 hits that appear to be only non-reliable fansites and the like or unrelated which strongly indicates this topic has never recieved substantial coverage from acceptable secondary sources. As such, it is unlikely any amount of rewriting or improvement can bring the article up to policy by providing real-world significance or establishing notability. Once unencyclopedic, in-universe material is removed (per WP:FICT#Non-notable_topics), there would no content to merge into another article. Doctorfluffy ( talk) 04:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 01:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence that any of these claims are true. Even if they turn out to be, they should go away until an album is actually released, and notability can be properly established. Carom ( talk) 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Already merged. Black Kite 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Merged into Judge and Bruiser (mascots) → Wordbuilder ( talk) 00:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, nothing suggests article needs to be deleted, suggest a merge discussion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is another in-universe plot repetition article without any referencing or notability, and all of this information is already covered in greater detail in the Shrek 2 and 3 articles, and is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 00:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and protect against recreation. Deleted five times by five different admins ( Postdlf, Nohat, NawlinWiki, Oxymoron83, and most recently Jimfbleak) under WP:CSD#A7, no claim of notability. —— Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein ( talk • contribs) 23:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No importance. Thebluesharpdude ( talk) 20:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. -- Howard the Duck 03:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC) reply
More Below
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A LaTeX class (in other words a stylesheet) for a specific university is not notable. SJK ( talk) 11:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC) reply