The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article consists primarily of 1) a dictionary definition which is so vague, it doesn't clearly identify a coherent phenomenon, 2) links to various musings and free-associations on the meaning of the term, 3) links to polemics using the term. The article itself, in the lead, suggests that the term has no meanigful applicability because it is so vague. Then it ignores that point, and goes on to produce a hodge-podge of interpretations. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on the inconsistent interpretations and usage of a term.
The problem in writing about this term is evident in the amount of weasel-wording it uses. Virtually the entire article is written in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is...." Followed by something like "It has been countered that anti-Americanism is...." Generally, no reason is given for why those particular suggestions are more important or accurate than any others, leaving a wide-open door for perceived-POV-pushing. This is no way to write an article, but it is unavoidable with this topic.
An encylopedia entry needs to be on a well-defined topic. This one isn't. The result is a rambling usage guide for a controversial term. That's not encyclopedic. Bsharvy ( talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)If this article is bad editors are at liberty to improve it rather than deleting it. Just because a notion eludes certain editors understanding is no reason to delete the article on it. I don't understand quantum physics but that is no reason to delete the wikipedia article on it. Colin4C ( talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
"If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it." If some editors could write a description that's complete and not POV, this would settled. It's true, the editors haven't ever said "in their own words" what anti-americanism is. Rachel63 ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't assert notability in any way, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
O (zero) non-wiki ghits for "hollow house syndrome", reads like a magazine article ( WP:OR?) Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per above Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete and salt by User:Jmlk17 just as AfD opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable piece of software and website. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. No notability beyond major party candidate for public office; ample precedent and WP:BIO show that that's not sufficient notability. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has no sources. It has no assertion of notability. There could be thousand of such bands, no of which should be on Wiki. Yes, they may exist, but that does not mean they should be on Wiki. Tried a speedy already, but have committed to a full afd under the recommendation of admins. Btline ( talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not entirely convinced that this person meets the WP:BIO criteria for notability. No vote from me either way, I would just like to see if we can come to a consensus since this article has a habit of being re-created. RFerreira ( talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Just wondering - this is the second attempt at AfD? Any particular reason why? JAF1970 ( talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. — Reedy Boy 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No one cares about a dumb plane Girlgirlgirl ( talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
While there are some similarities between hackers, virus coders, and phone phreaks, I don't think these groups necessarily form a complete community. What this article really describes is three related but distinct communities. The topic is too vague and broad. This needs to be deleted. Nlm1515 ( talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This company has 1 cancelled game, 1 game that sold less than a million units, and some games that as of 2005, may or may not be ever released. Not notable at all. RogueNinja talk 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Core desat 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Reason: non-notable, non-informative, no citations or references to this alleged play, no evidence of any publication, performance or review. Hence Delete - all it needs (if anything) is a mention in the WP article on its author. Smerus ( talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Viable search term. Redirecting to J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.. Please note, I'm not merging any content but I'm leaving the previous history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unused except by the Rossners in their works; GS shows essentially only their own papers or the title of such a paper when used in a citation. If substantial use can be shown otherwise, it should be documented in the article. DGG ( talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dicdef which should be deleted and merged with steelpan. Kakofonous ( talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep and expand. I think there's certainly room for expansion (famous pannists etc.) for it to stand alone separate from Steelpan, but the article has thus far been without the necessary interested editors. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Was up for Afd in August 2005. Since then no effort to assert notability and no evidence that he is notable. Family, maybe. Himself, nope. Travellingcari ( talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't think doing Spanish-language dubs of various roles in imported TV programs is enough to pass WP:BIO. Has almost no Google presence. And, by the way, that does indeed appear to be the correct spelling of his name. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a promotional piece for a local non-notable band. This has been speedied once already, but given that this version has been around for a while I am reluctant to speedy it. The quotes given in the "notable quotes" section (a sign that this group is trying a little too hard to show notability) appear to be false as I can't find anything reliable that contains them. Core desat 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BLP, lack of secondary sources; full of external links which can be considered as WP:SPAM; the only (disputable) notability reason may be related to the reference of opt-in method invention, but simple web-search reveals Ryan Scott Druckenmiller, not Ryan Scott. Mserge ( talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete lacks reliable sources, notability not proven, fails WP:CORP. Ѕandahl 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Proprietary technology used in single product (advertisement); notability improbable given Google results for "Disk Firewall". Lea ( talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Was proposed for deletion, but contested. Reason for deletion: an entire article based on a book predicted in the author's blog. She says she'll *start* to write it in May! Tony Sidaway 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This provides no references, there is no indication that the book, or the series of which it is part, is notable, and the article is no more than a plot summary plus basic details like author, publisher and ISBN. It was PRODded on the grounds of "no information" at a time when the article was only an infobox; the creator removed the PROD when adding the brief plot summary. So it needs to come here. JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted (and improbable, looking on Google/Google Scholar). Lea ( talk) 05:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page was previously listed at AfD. A Deletion Review overturned that closure as poorly founded. However, some doubt remains whether the sources that have been found are enough to show that the band meets WP:N. I feel that there hasn't been enough presented to write a good article and so recommend Deletion unless better sources (whether in Russian hard copy or whatever) are found. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I do believe it fails WP:WEB. The sources are not notable enough to constitut an article. Plus, the sources only give a brief interview with the founder about the company. Nothing to assert notability. Undeath ( talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus reached. Redirecting doesn't seem viable at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion requested and hang-on posted. Article does not appear to indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Procedural nomination appears to fail inclusion guidelines. -- VS talk 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Very limited amount of information; it's articles like these that unnecessarily use Wikipedia's bandwidth. F* L* RAP 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per Oakshade. Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I first nominated this article on 30 November 2007, as it was unsourced and the article did not assert the notability of the subject. The article has not been modified to any great extent since then, so I am relisting on the same grounds. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The topic is notable in hemp research, botany research and in cannabis drug culture. -- Rigby27 ( talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I have counted the two keeps with less weight because we have never accepted things being named after people as notability, and there is no evidence that Brevard county was named after this Brevard. We certainly don't consider every public official as notable. N=V+RS+encyclopedic content.
Delete as per WP:BIO. His father may have sufficient notability to get an article on WP but he does not. Being the son of a famous father doesn't establish someone's notability (with some rare exception). -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment. The George Washington Brevard article (that Niaz links to as the father) is misnamed; the text is about a Theodore. There appears to be confusion about the names. This site describes Theodore Sr. as "register of the land office at Tallahassee, Fla., and Comptroller of Public Accounts for the state of Florida". His son, Theodore Jr., was a Brig. General in the Confederate Army. [19]. It looks like Theodore Jr. had a son named George. The Brevards apparently are mentioned in LeRoy Collins's Forerunners Courageous. Unfortunately, the book doesn't have an index, so it will take me a little while to see if there is enough there to use as a reference. Both Theodore Sr. and Theodore Jr. might be notable enough for their own articles, but I would like to find better sources. -- Donald Albury 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus - keep for now and clean it up. Bearian ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable fictional character. It fails at WP:N and also to some extent at WP:V as it is really hard to find anything about this character from Google. At least I have completely failed. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this page and two others just like it. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content like this. The pages aren't very encyclopedic and don't really contain any information aside from what basically looks like chapter headers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an insufficiently notable music publication. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dubious page, tagged as needing cites since June 2007, appearing to be a vanity page, orphaned with no links back to it. Yaf ( talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All the sources cited, and indeed anything I can find are directly tied to the school. No evidence of notability or coverage by independent sources. Travellingcari ( talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. Given that all of the band's albums are up for deletion, here & here, and there's been minimal input, the best thing to do is combine the information into the main article, Pork Dukes. — Scien tizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable release, 391 hits in Google Rapido ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep I googled for "All the filth!" CD and got 5,600 hits. Either way, low g-hits may only indicate that it's a niche market item, which seems to be the case here. My understanding is that the group was a medium-level part of the first Brit punk invasion and that this compilation is significant for being a reasonable retrospective of their contribution to the genre. Yeah, I'm an inclusionist. Matt Deres ( talk) 14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep The notability of the band seems to be well-established, despite your never hearing about them before, and therefore so too are their official releases. This disc in particular seems to be a notable release from this group. Jlivy ( talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)— Jlivy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Filth!. — Scien tizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
extremely non-notable rel., 36 Google hits Rapido ( talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability by saying he's known for his style; however, a search for sources turned up only information on the country music artist of the same name. Also asserts notability by two labels on Syphrus Music; however, a serach for sources on that label turned up nothing of note.
Also listing for deletion the supposedly non-notable label:
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I've already had this discussion with YoungAmerican. These pages have existed for years and were accepted up until recently. YoungAmerican had recently deleted the artists from the label but said that the label was notable. Joe Nichols released two albums on the label, meeting critieria for musicians and ensembles:
YoungAmerican deleted all artists affiliated with the Syphrus Music label, saying that "label notable, but all bands flunk A7". Joe Nichols has released two albums on that label. If the label is notable, then that artist meets the criteria:
Criteria for musicians and ensembles
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
Responses from YoungAmerican were: The label can be mildly notable without the artists being noteworthy. I'm thinking that the label passes WP:CORP
So the label has existed for more than a few years, and has a roster of performers and releases. Only one of these performers has released two albums, but the total output of the label is significantly higher. Regardless of the notability of the artists who have only released one album, other editors have stated that the label is "mildy notable" and meets WP:CORP. Additionally, there are long-time labels on Wikipedia who have done less and have not been subject to deletion.
Kevingarrity ( talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe that the label's own website should indicate that the label exists. Additionally, the label had previously been known as Syphrus Recordings and a search for that term turns up different results. When the individual artists from this label were still included on Wikipedia, there were links to albums that had been physically released by the label. WP:CORP states that notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Criteria of WP:CORP also states that "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."
A search for the label and its releases turned up the following article from Blabbermouth.net (one of the top metal music news sites online) http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76112
Kevingarrity ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails Notability Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The source I sited was an article published by an international news source. It does not appear to be a press release. I also don't understand how these articles were acceptable until recently. Have there only recently been changes in Wiki policy? The criteria WP:CORP is not "substantial" coverage - merely "coverage in secondary source". Brief mentions on a variety of websites or an article on an international news site may not be substantial, but they are in fact secondary sources which is the minimum criteria. Additionally, MySpace pages not maintained by the subject are secondary sources. We could also include sites that sell the albums in question as proof that they exist, but I was under the impression that it was not policy to link to vendor sites. I am also researching offline sources since Wikipedia allows for such sources.
Kevingarrity ( talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So why does your opinion outweigh others? Additionally, the criteria in question seems to be WP:CORP not WP:MUSIC. The criteria for this is coverage (not substantial coverage) from a secondary source. By the way, regarding MySpace and vendor cites - this is why I did not cite those sources, but you seemed to question whether these albums actually existed and a site that sells it would prove that. Kevingarrity ( talk)
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete album track for forthcoming album, unsourced as usual, lacks notability, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unlikely to meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria. May not meet our standards, but could easily be transwiki'd to a more appropriate wiki under the GFDL. Solumeiras ( talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Filth!. — Scien tizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
nn., "the Pork Dukes" "Kum Kleen!" 142 hits Rapido ( talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No evidence that this term is used in reliable sources. Core desat 05:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was deleted as recreation of deleted content, but this was overturned on DRV because drafts were significantly different. Problems with original research and insufficient referencing were sufficient to renominate at AfD, however. This is a procedural nomination. IronGargoyle ( talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Again, NN. Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Henry Merrivale ( talk) 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to 100.7 Heart FM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria. This article should really be transwiki'd per GFDL to a more appropriate wiki. Solumeiras ( talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to 100.7 Heart FM. Black Kite 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability is made, and she probably doesn't meet WP:BIO, even if her employer is notable. As per Kim Shaw and Dave Clarke (DJ), this has been listed at VfD. -- Solumeiras ( talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete no verifiable information. Can be recreated if/when reliable sources available. Black Kite 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No content, no references, WP:FUTURE. fschoenm ( talk) 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 11:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable congregation without any references to establish notability. Bstone ( talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
*Oppose Per
IZAK.
Nsaum75 (
talk)
20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Oppose per
IZAK.
Culturalrevival (
talk)
00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --
brew
crewer
(yada, yada)
07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
NOTE: The article, now renamed Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate it from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, is now a full article. It meets all criteria for such an article. It is requested that the nomination be withdrawn! Thank you. IZAK ( talk) 10:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment It might be worth taking a look at the discussion taking place on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Mailing lists as sources where some senior core policy editors seem willing to take a very case-by-case approach in determining what sources are reliable in a field. Such discussions are common. Flexibility in application, such as field-specific considerations in determining source reliability, are part of Wikipedia's fabric. Such flexibility should not be confused with abandoning core policy requirements, like giving articles passes from having to establish notability. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC). reply
The result was Keep, nominator withdrew. Chetblong T C 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete On hold
Bstone (
talk)
Bstone (
talk)
19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable congregation, does not cite and references. Deletion is in order. I am currently reviewing the article.
*Oppose per
IZAK
Nsaum75 (
talk)
20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Oppose per
IZAK.
Culturalrevival (
talk)
00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any reliable sources about this person. I put it to AfD for consensus. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
List of external links, the parties are already in the list on
Labour Party Members of Parliament in London --
Snigbrook
(talk)
20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. This is not a useful navigational reference for the reader, so does not warrant a place in mainspace. If a wikiproject or an editor/ group of editors want this userfied or moved to project space, let me know. JERRY talk contribs 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
List of external links, most of these companies do not have articles -- Snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by TimVickers. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
questionable notability (aside from a known label, what is their notability?) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to legal education. JERRY talk contribs 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete contested prod; this was prodded by one editor, prod was removed without edit summary by another - it has been copied to wiktionary and this is a classic WP:DICDEF, which is for our sister project. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete substub bio of a tv personality best known for being on a redlink show. Fails WP:BIO. So nn we don't know when or where she was born or anything else she did - seems like a bit part player. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, although I admit this is a small consensus, the opinions here are valid and policy/guideline based. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No real claim of notability for this architecture practice - a car park and a footbridge do not count as "significant" unless proven otherwise. Unsourced peacockery which appears to be mostly advertising. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. There do appear to be a few small articles about the bridge, it won a design award and it's mentioned in at least one book, [25] [26] [27] [28] so if anything perhaps an article should be created about that--but the firm itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to require an article. DanielEng ( talk) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete clearly fails WP:BIO for athletes. Black Kite 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The the verifiability bit of the guidelines, which is a reason for nomination and this bio reads like a vanity article with a list of achievements as if it is a CV. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mayors of major cities are frequently kept on Wikipedia; mayors of small towns usually are not. Despite the appearance of a 5-4 no-consensus, three of the four keep votes have to be discounted as anon IPs and likely puppets of the sock or meat flavours. Bearcat ( talk) 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete local politician mayor of the fine city of 9000 souls, but ultimately not notable. It may be time to set up a notability guideline for local politicians - yes, this isn't exactly the place to discuss that - because literally many will have mentions in the local rags that no doubt some would consider as meeting WP:BIO or WP:N rather than just demonstrating further WP:BIAS toward the US/UK who have lots of local rags and they all seem to be on the internet. Just a thought... In any event, this mayor is so nn, we don't know when or where she was born, her policies, party, whether she has any real power or is a first among equals type of mayor or even how long she has been or will be mayor. Alas, the things an inquiring mind would want to know from an encyclopedic biography.. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. This article already exists properly elsewhere. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; prod notice was removed by anon IP editor without comment. No references at all. and nothing found on search engines that proves that this name has been applied to the play in question, or has achieved widespread usage. The play is adequately covered in the Super Bowl XLII article. Yes, it was a spectacular play, but this article by itself and under this title is not notable. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not explain why this subject is notable Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect. Fram ( talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-liner about a student newspaper; newspapers are not inherently notable, student ones too, and there's nothing to indicate that this paper has won any meaningful awards or uncovered any great stories or is any different than the papers published at thousands of other colleges. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable third party presidential candidate. Zero hits in google news. Endorsed by the "The New American Liberty League", but no evidence that organization is notable either. Jfire ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as NN, and no way to verify its importance; currently Spanish WP is no help. Allow for its re-creation when reliable sources can be found. Bearian ( talk) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn political party, there are a few hundred registered political parties in Spain and this one seems to exist more in cyberspace than in reality and hasn't won any seats apparently. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If anyone knows Spanish they could expand the article by expanding from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acci%C3%B3n_por_la_Justicia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that this software is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect song title back to artist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication or sources showing that this song is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete No context whatsoever. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, which of course defaults to keep. No prejudice against a relist sometime in the future. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No film notability met (or asserted), possible vanity from single-purpose account. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 08:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - The film is noticable as it was released internationally, it is not an amateur film so therefore it is not a vanity page. OOODDD ( talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Reuserfy. As of this discussion, the consensus is to delete this article based on the lack of independent, reliable sources, which means it is not verifiable. I agree that because this is a consumer product, because of its lengthy deletion history, and overall lack of sourcing, it is too easy for this to be perceived, in its current state, as advertising instead of encyclopedic. Because the creator has shown a willingness to take another stab at this, so be it. The article contents will be found for the time being at User:Ubzy/Voodoo Tiki Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Premature restoration of deleted material. Was deleted before, in Dec. 2007 (speedily, I think; it shows up in the WP:DRV logs, as a rejected candidate for restoration, but there is no pre-existing AfD log for an article by this name), with the warning that it must be fully sourced in a userspace draft before being restored. This has not been done; only very trivial facts have been sourced (I have {{ facts}}-tagged the unsourced sections). Furthermore, the article does not establish notability (though it alleges notability enough, via discussion of breadth of distribution, to perhaps survive speedy deletion). As far as content goes (not to mention style, for which it has been cleanup-tagged) it is basically just an advertisement, going on at length about the qualities and elaborate production of the commodity with no material on critical reception, popularity or other metrics of a product's notability. Was also not at all written in anything approximating encyclopedic style, full of sentence fragments and rambling redundancies, but I've personally cleaned that up a lot myself just out of charity. I do not think it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about this company/product (whether it will prove to be notable or not), but this isn't it, and the (re-)creator was warned at DRV. I think this should be userspaced again for further development. The editor responsible for it appears to have made some effort to source it, but needs to read WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT more closely and try again. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Moreover, articles about commercial businesses and products do get somewhat higher scrutiny. Wikipedia is a high visibility site. The temptation to use it for free advertising is strong. Our attempts to improve the credibility of information here mean that these things are going to face an uphill battle.
The article as it stands now is sourced entirely to Voodoo Tiki's own promotional website, and I fear that does not pass muster. Like I said, this is a consumer product. Independent coverage may well exist. I'd be happy to copy this article to a draft on your user page until such time as it can meet these tests. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, possible original research, no verifiability. Houses of worship are not inherently notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Black Kite 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability in any way Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This isn't a particularly special case and the person isn't otherwise notable. Fails WP:NOTE. The facts of the case don't warrant a special article. If it's a case of Ragging, it should merge into that article. Sadly, this young man became so distraught over being picked on at school that he decided to take his own life. Unfortunately, that story is not that uncommon, especially for young people under enormous stress in school. -- JJLatWiki ( talk) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A description of videos shown on board Delta airlines doesn't - as far as I can see - satisy WP:N CultureDrone ( talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:ORG; no significant media coverage on google:computeach. Lea ( talk) 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:Dictionary entry. Lea ( talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Rationale: Essay/howto-style article, unreferenced, thematic duplicate of unit test (anything encyclopedic that could be added to this article should rather be added to unit test). Lea ( talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Moreover, I would question whether we need quite so much granularity about the minutiae of software development or the problems of supervising software developers. That sort of thing seems to attract spam; be poorly written; full of vaguely abstract talk of "processes" and "systems". My general impression is that it constitutes a sort of tech-management-cruft. Notability is usually not an issue, since there probably is an extensive literature for any such subject you might name; readability, general interest, and sorting out legitimate topics from stealth spam are. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
First part is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Latter part is a massive, unsourced trivia section of casual uses of the term. Niether is IMHO particularly useful for the project. TexasAndroid ( talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established; unreferenced since Nov. 2007; no significant secondary sources on google:5-lever-lock. Lea ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This band has apparently released one record in South Africa. The best coverage I could find is this, not enough to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Maybe there's more, but given the state of the article, is it really worth giving it the benefit of the doubt? Jfire ( talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Insignificant. The page is a result of Wikipedia bias. If there is a page for this logo, why not a page for every other company logo? Plus, hundreds of websites have a history for their logos and change it for the holidays. LightSpeed3 ( talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability or coverage in reliable third-party sources. A Google search yields 312 unpromising results. скоморохъ 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete by User:Ioeth (non-admin closure). EJF ( talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish notability for this band per WP:MUSIC. Jfire ( talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Google searches yield nothing. Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable record label. Undeath ( talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Assertions of notability are enough to stave off a speedyt deletion but we expect the subjects of bio articles to have multiple independent sources both to allow verification of information and to demonstrate notability. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability and ghits are mainly naming him in his position. No evidence of the accolades claimed by article creator almost a year ago. Travellingcari ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Chetblong T C 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Two names. Just not enough to sustain a "List" Vikrant 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition with a previously contested PROD. TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Does not particularly assert notability. The only product advertised on the website is in beta. Most of the top Ghits are press releases or references to various development boards that the people there have posted sl. Article was created by User:Digini, so there's a WP:COI issue here too. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was closed as speedy delete. Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
[Non notable?] stockmarket firm, slightly spammy. Previously deleted as G11. Was prodded, but a prod cannot be used on something that was previously deleted, so I bring it here. I am neutral. J Milburn ( talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Post-transwiki PROD removed, but still not a useful article for this project. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per discussion below. The question of whether or not to merge the content into another article can be handled through normal discussion. Non-admin close. -- jonny- m t 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied. PROD deleted. Recreated. (And I have restored the deleted history in line with the spirit of the contested PROD.) But still, just a dictionary definition. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied and PRODed as a dictionary definition. PROD contested saying it was not a dictinary article, but article contains nothing more than a definition. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- MCB ( talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The first part is barely more that a dictionary definition, and has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The latter, list part, is all totally unsourced, subjective as to inclusion, and without sourcing for why any individual entry belongs on the list is a WP:OR violation as well. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect as soft redirect to Wiktionary. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Post-transwiki PROD removed, but still not a useful article for this project. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I proded the article a while back, but it was removed and the page was moved to the title "Mathematics in Futurama". However, since January 20, there had been no attempts to expand the page and it was basically only about the "Greenwaldian Theorem" so I moved it back to that page. The "Greenwaldian Theorem" while it is supposedly accurate doesn't appear to have any notability (A google search gets 45 hits while a Google Books search gets zilch) and it's only notability is its brief appearance on a chalkboard in Futurama: Bender's Big Score. Scorpion 0422 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn -- Scorpion 0422 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Most of these characters don't have any real world notability. The ones that do (Itchy & Scratchy and Radioactive Man) already have pages. Others can easily be (or already are) merged elsewhere - Poochie to The Itchy & Scratchy Show, Malibu Stacy to List of products in The Simpsons, Fallout Boy to Radioactive Man, Lard Lad to Treehouse of Horror VI, etc. Either way, none of the characters without pages have any real world info, and notability is not inherited. Scorpion 0422 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no point in wasting an afd if it can't be deleted, although it is amazingly stupid that I'm affected by this even though I haven't been involved in that arbcom case in any major way. Withdrawn. -- Scorpion 0422 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete on strength of arguments. The previous discussion was a "no consensus", the "realwolrd information" is not relevant for the article (education of the authors), it is not indicated which parts may be worth keeping or merging... On the other hand, "I support deletion because X does" is an ignorable argument as well. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this page about a year ago and I've decided that it's time to try to kill my own creation. It is just a random group of information - what schools the writers & characters went to, a list of schools, etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also no real world info, other than the list of what writers went to Harvard, but that is complete listcruft. -- Scorpion 0422 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- MCB ( talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A failure of WP:BIO. An article on an insurance claims adjuster who is described as "one of the foremost authorities on property and insurance claims in the world." Much of the article is focused on his single book, Insurance Claim Secrets REVEALED!, published through Trafford Publishing, a vanity press. Ordering information and a link are provided. The subject is first described as having won four Grammy Awards - at odds, perhaps, with the later claim that he has "been on recordings that have won four Grammy Awards". The creation of Authorboy1, a single purpose account which is self-described as "Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company" on the discussion page. Victoriagirl ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dear Victoriagirl:
1. I've removed the "foremost authority" sentence. 2. Trafford Publishing is a Publish On Demand (POD) publisher, not a vanity press. 3. I've revised the Grammy information to make sure both comments are consistent with each other. 4. The Authorboy1 is my comment through my publishing company name. No effort at misinformation here...I'm brand new to this forum and there are lots of the procedures I don't understand. Besides, complaining about my account name does not answer the issue. I was asking the person who made the negative comment to explain so I can answer any concerns.
Russell D. Longcore Authorboy1 ( talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The only business on this page with any real world info is Kwik-E-Mart and all of that is already covered on its page. So this fails WP:FICT. There are some real world places named after these fictional businesses (ie. Krusty Burger) but anything notable can be merged into List of fictional locations in The Simpsons, as there is no need for two pages about locations in the show. I'm sure some will say there is no need for one page about locations on the show, but, I'm not going to afd it (yet). and -- Scorpion 0422 14:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So I feel once completed this will make for a pretty informative article. As for getting rid of it altogether the only complete articles on here writing about the businesses seen in The Simpsons are the articles on Moes and the Kwiki-Mart which you can write heaps about as they are seen regularly. But to write something about a businesses that appears on only a handful of episodes would end up with a very small article. My intentions here were simply to expand on some of the other Simpsons articles like the article on Media, Religeon, Education and Politics, I figure that if all these can have there own article why not a page on business. I also think the businesses I have written about are notable too such as The Leftorium, Bowl-A-Rama, Aztec Theater and so on the person who merged didn't even include all the businesses. Bhowden ( talk) 07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Vanity page of a non-notable consultant. No secondary sources of any kind. Biography posted by a representative of the subject, so COI issues as well. DarkAudit ( talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BIO. Subject of little or no notability. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability as he has never played for a fully professional club. Being related to a famous footballer does not confer notability (as noted in the Romeo Beckham AfD). The only thing left is him being arrested on the accusation of supplying cocaine, which I don't believe makes him notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
talk 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Having offences deemed of interest to an intrusive press because of one's relations might be good enough for the tabloid's, but it is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
'Keep' I thought Wikipedia was an Encylcopedia so why can we not have articles about people that have been in the news for reasons that don't frankly matter. Isn't Wikipedia ment to contribute to the world, what if somebody is looking for Rhdori Giggs, do we turn them down? No, Wikipedia is ment to help others! Sharadjalota456 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Stotfield does not exist as a village but only as a part of the town of Lossiemouth. The Lossiemouth article fully explains Stotfield as a part of Lossiemouth. All Ordnance Survey maps show that Stotfield is not an independent settlement Bill Reid | Talk 13:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical article about non-notable subject. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence that surface is notable, or a commonly used term for the surface. No entry on MathWorld Jeodesic ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, withdrawn nomination, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, IMDB entry is not nessacarially a valid claim to notability, no assertion of notability otherwise.
Mr Senseless (
talk)
04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Taking it here, mainly to empty out Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2007. Lack of notability Montchav ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merged and redirected to Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2006). Information was already there; I added an additional reference from this article. -- MCB ( talk) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like a major skirmish and does not deserve an article TheFEARgod ( Ч) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
...a slang term for people who aren't in a fan scene anymore. Enough said. UsaSatsui ( talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on a specific piece of corporate stationary- an envelope. Non notable. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn ( talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Orangemike ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). cab ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable YouTube series, no reliable sources. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn ( talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. He plays a game too? I don't know about that link. Delete Undeath ( talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Lacks notability, totally reads like an advert. If anyone can find notability (and this is a primary school we're talking about here), then it should probably be deleted and start over (IMHO). SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There are lots of popular terms we know exist and have contemporary useage, but we don't have articles about them unless it can meet WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. It's all very simple, really. JERRY talk contribs 00:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sub-sub-genre; wholly unreferenced and most likely original research. Only two of the artists listed and none of the labels even have articles here. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Very WP:NN series. References do not provide any insight. Main prose of article, the episode synopsi and background story, do not show up any hits on google indicating WP:OR. The link to the video hosting site where the short films are shown tell me that (taken from random) Episode 3 has 5 views (including my 1 to check the views)... Scarian Call me Pat 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The only assertion of notability is of being a "highly media-exposed professor", but no sources are cited to support this claim, and none appear in a Google search for Enrique Dans except blogs. The external links are all to self-promotional blogs. Neparis ( talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Non-admin closure. Maximillion Pegasus ( talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has no references that actually mention the subject, on top of it being non-notable neologism cOrneLlrOckEy ( talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for notability since April 2007; web search reveals a few blog hits but no reliable sources that I could find. "All but ignored by the music industry at large" == fails WP:MUSIC. Jfire ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely non notable film. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by author, a single purpose account. J Milburn ( talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Whatever you say, but just you wait Dylcox ( talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No, i'm just saying that it's gonna be big Dylcox ( talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Chetblong T C 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was created a few days ago and has been CSD tagged and prodded. Virtually every contributor to it is a SPA and they seem to do nothing but edit war over its contents. So I'm taking it to AfD to decide if it meets the WP:CORP guidelines. Polly ( Parrot) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
What is notable is that company itself did not post this entree-the stuff about what the company does was concoted by author of the article just so he could write about the three year old law suit. Law suits are a dime a dozen especially ones that are three years old and have been settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.29.4 ( talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fake article Dirtymics ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I can find no notability to meet WP:BIO guidelines on this person. The originating editor assured me he'd work to improve the article and outline the notability beyond the subject's being a pastor at a historical church. He hasn't returned since. ju66l3r ( talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination from a new user whos first edits were this AfD. Bernier is the Canadian Foreign Minister, a senior Cabinet position. Polly ( Parrot) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) a non-admin close. reply
Unknown insignificant political figure. Of little relavence to Canadian politics Spainhereicome ( talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article consists primarily of 1) a dictionary definition which is so vague, it doesn't clearly identify a coherent phenomenon, 2) links to various musings and free-associations on the meaning of the term, 3) links to polemics using the term. The article itself, in the lead, suggests that the term has no meanigful applicability because it is so vague. Then it ignores that point, and goes on to produce a hodge-podge of interpretations. An encyclopedia article needs to be more than report on the inconsistent interpretations and usage of a term.
The problem in writing about this term is evident in the amount of weasel-wording it uses. Virtually the entire article is written in the passive voice, e.g. "It has been suggested that anti-Americanism is...." Followed by something like "It has been countered that anti-Americanism is...." Generally, no reason is given for why those particular suggestions are more important or accurate than any others, leaving a wide-open door for perceived-POV-pushing. This is no way to write an article, but it is unavoidable with this topic.
An encylopedia entry needs to be on a well-defined topic. This one isn't. The result is a rambling usage guide for a controversial term. That's not encyclopedic. Bsharvy ( talk) 07:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)If this article is bad editors are at liberty to improve it rather than deleting it. Just because a notion eludes certain editors understanding is no reason to delete the article on it. I don't understand quantum physics but that is no reason to delete the wikipedia article on it. Colin4C ( talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
"If the editors cannot say, in their own words, what their topic is, they cannot write an article about it." If some editors could write a description that's complete and not POV, this would settled. It's true, the editors haven't ever said "in their own words" what anti-americanism is. Rachel63 ( talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't assert notability in any way, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 12:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, fails WP:MUSIC. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
O (zero) non-wiki ghits for "hollow house syndrome", reads like a magazine article ( WP:OR?) Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per above Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete and salt by User:Jmlk17 just as AfD opened, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable piece of software and website. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted as a copyright violation. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 02:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. No notability beyond major party candidate for public office; ample precedent and WP:BIO show that that's not sufficient notability. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has no sources. It has no assertion of notability. There could be thousand of such bands, no of which should be on Wiki. Yes, they may exist, but that does not mean they should be on Wiki. Tried a speedy already, but have committed to a full afd under the recommendation of admins. Btline ( talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I am not entirely convinced that this person meets the WP:BIO criteria for notability. No vote from me either way, I would just like to see if we can come to a consensus since this article has a habit of being re-created. RFerreira ( talk) 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Just wondering - this is the second attempt at AfD? Any particular reason why? JAF1970 ( talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. — Reedy Boy 23:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No one cares about a dumb plane Girlgirlgirl ( talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. — Scien tizzle 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
While there are some similarities between hackers, virus coders, and phone phreaks, I don't think these groups necessarily form a complete community. What this article really describes is three related but distinct communities. The topic is too vague and broad. This needs to be deleted. Nlm1515 ( talk) 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This company has 1 cancelled game, 1 game that sold less than a million units, and some games that as of 2005, may or may not be ever released. Not notable at all. RogueNinja talk 01:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Core desat 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Reason: non-notable, non-informative, no citations or references to this alleged play, no evidence of any publication, performance or review. Hence Delete - all it needs (if anything) is a mention in the WP article on its author. Smerus ( talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect. Viable search term. Redirecting to J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.. Please note, I'm not merging any content but I'm leaving the previous history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unused except by the Rossners in their works; GS shows essentially only their own papers or the title of such a paper when used in a citation. If substantial use can be shown otherwise, it should be documented in the article. DGG ( talk) 01:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian ( talk) 18:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dicdef which should be deleted and merged with steelpan. Kakofonous ( talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep and expand. I think there's certainly room for expansion (famous pannists etc.) for it to stand alone separate from Steelpan, but the article has thus far been without the necessary interested editors. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 23:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Was up for Afd in August 2005. Since then no effort to assert notability and no evidence that he is notable. Family, maybe. Himself, nope. Travellingcari ( talk) 02:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't think doing Spanish-language dubs of various roles in imported TV programs is enough to pass WP:BIO. Has almost no Google presence. And, by the way, that does indeed appear to be the correct spelling of his name. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 00:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a promotional piece for a local non-notable band. This has been speedied once already, but given that this version has been around for a while I am reluctant to speedy it. The quotes given in the "notable quotes" section (a sign that this group is trying a little too hard to show notability) appear to be false as I can't find anything reliable that contains them. Core desat 00:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BLP, lack of secondary sources; full of external links which can be considered as WP:SPAM; the only (disputable) notability reason may be related to the reference of opt-in method invention, but simple web-search reveals Ryan Scott Druckenmiller, not Ryan Scott. Mserge ( talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete lacks reliable sources, notability not proven, fails WP:CORP. Ѕandahl 00:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Proprietary technology used in single product (advertisement); notability improbable given Google results for "Disk Firewall". Lea ( talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 00:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Was proposed for deletion, but contested. Reason for deletion: an entire article based on a book predicted in the author's blog. She says she'll *start* to write it in May! Tony Sidaway 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, default to keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This provides no references, there is no indication that the book, or the series of which it is part, is notable, and the article is no more than a plot summary plus basic details like author, publisher and ISBN. It was PRODded on the grounds of "no information" at a time when the article was only an infobox; the creator removed the PROD when adding the brief plot summary. So it needs to come here. JohnCD ( talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not asserted (and improbable, looking on Google/Google Scholar). Lea ( talk) 05:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 06:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page was previously listed at AfD. A Deletion Review overturned that closure as poorly founded. However, some doubt remains whether the sources that have been found are enough to show that the band meets WP:N. I feel that there hasn't been enough presented to write a good article and so recommend Deletion unless better sources (whether in Russian hard copy or whatever) are found. Eluchil404 ( talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I do believe it fails WP:WEB. The sources are not notable enough to constitut an article. Plus, the sources only give a brief interview with the founder about the company. Nothing to assert notability. Undeath ( talk) 05:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus reached. Redirecting doesn't seem viable at this time. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion requested and hang-on posted. Article does not appear to indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Procedural nomination appears to fail inclusion guidelines. -- VS talk 09:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 04:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable. Very limited amount of information; it's articles like these that unnecessarily use Wikipedia's bandwidth. F* L* RAP 22:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep per Oakshade. Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I first nominated this article on 30 November 2007, as it was unsourced and the article did not assert the notability of the subject. The article has not been modified to any great extent since then, so I am relisting on the same grounds. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The topic is notable in hemp research, botany research and in cannabis drug culture. -- Rigby27 ( talk) 18:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. I have counted the two keeps with less weight because we have never accepted things being named after people as notability, and there is no evidence that Brevard county was named after this Brevard. We certainly don't consider every public official as notable. N=V+RS+encyclopedic content.
Delete as per WP:BIO. His father may have sufficient notability to get an article on WP but he does not. Being the son of a famous father doesn't establish someone's notability (with some rare exception). -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 13:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment. The George Washington Brevard article (that Niaz links to as the father) is misnamed; the text is about a Theodore. There appears to be confusion about the names. This site describes Theodore Sr. as "register of the land office at Tallahassee, Fla., and Comptroller of Public Accounts for the state of Florida". His son, Theodore Jr., was a Brig. General in the Confederate Army. [19]. It looks like Theodore Jr. had a son named George. The Brevards apparently are mentioned in LeRoy Collins's Forerunners Courageous. Unfortunately, the book doesn't have an index, so it will take me a little while to see if there is enough there to use as a reference. Both Theodore Sr. and Theodore Jr. might be notable enough for their own articles, but I would like to find better sources. -- Donald Albury 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus - keep for now and clean it up. Bearian ( talk) 17:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-notable fictional character. It fails at WP:N and also to some extent at WP:V as it is really hard to find anything about this character from Google. At least I have completely failed. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 13:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this page and two others just like it. Wikipedia is not a place to recreate content like this. The pages aren't very encyclopedic and don't really contain any information aside from what basically looks like chapter headers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be an insufficiently notable music publication. Delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dubious page, tagged as needing cites since June 2007, appearing to be a vanity page, orphaned with no links back to it. Yaf ( talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All the sources cited, and indeed anything I can find are directly tied to the school. No evidence of notability or coverage by independent sources. Travellingcari ( talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge. Given that all of the band's albums are up for deletion, here & here, and there's been minimal input, the best thing to do is combine the information into the main article, Pork Dukes. — Scien tizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable release, 391 hits in Google Rapido ( talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep I googled for "All the filth!" CD and got 5,600 hits. Either way, low g-hits may only indicate that it's a niche market item, which seems to be the case here. My understanding is that the group was a medium-level part of the first Brit punk invasion and that this compilation is significant for being a reasonable retrospective of their contribution to the genre. Yeah, I'm an inclusionist. Matt Deres ( talk) 14:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep The notability of the band seems to be well-established, despite your never hearing about them before, and therefore so too are their official releases. This disc in particular seems to be a notable release from this group. Jlivy ( talk) 00:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)— Jlivy ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Filth!. — Scien tizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
extremely non-notable rel., 36 Google hits Rapido ( talk) 17:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Asserts notability by saying he's known for his style; however, a search for sources turned up only information on the country music artist of the same name. Also asserts notability by two labels on Syphrus Music; however, a serach for sources on that label turned up nothing of note.
Also listing for deletion the supposedly non-notable label:
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I've already had this discussion with YoungAmerican. These pages have existed for years and were accepted up until recently. YoungAmerican had recently deleted the artists from the label but said that the label was notable. Joe Nichols released two albums on the label, meeting critieria for musicians and ensembles:
YoungAmerican deleted all artists affiliated with the Syphrus Music label, saying that "label notable, but all bands flunk A7". Joe Nichols has released two albums on that label. If the label is notable, then that artist meets the criteria:
Criteria for musicians and ensembles
5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
Responses from YoungAmerican were: The label can be mildly notable without the artists being noteworthy. I'm thinking that the label passes WP:CORP
So the label has existed for more than a few years, and has a roster of performers and releases. Only one of these performers has released two albums, but the total output of the label is significantly higher. Regardless of the notability of the artists who have only released one album, other editors have stated that the label is "mildy notable" and meets WP:CORP. Additionally, there are long-time labels on Wikipedia who have done less and have not been subject to deletion.
Kevingarrity ( talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I believe that the label's own website should indicate that the label exists. Additionally, the label had previously been known as Syphrus Recordings and a search for that term turns up different results. When the individual artists from this label were still included on Wikipedia, there were links to albums that had been physically released by the label. WP:CORP states that notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Criteria of WP:CORP also states that "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."
A search for the label and its releases turned up the following article from Blabbermouth.net (one of the top metal music news sites online) http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=76112
Kevingarrity ( talk) 22:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails Notability Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The source I sited was an article published by an international news source. It does not appear to be a press release. I also don't understand how these articles were acceptable until recently. Have there only recently been changes in Wiki policy? The criteria WP:CORP is not "substantial" coverage - merely "coverage in secondary source". Brief mentions on a variety of websites or an article on an international news site may not be substantial, but they are in fact secondary sources which is the minimum criteria. Additionally, MySpace pages not maintained by the subject are secondary sources. We could also include sites that sell the albums in question as proof that they exist, but I was under the impression that it was not policy to link to vendor sites. I am also researching offline sources since Wikipedia allows for such sources.
Kevingarrity ( talk) 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So why does your opinion outweigh others? Additionally, the criteria in question seems to be WP:CORP not WP:MUSIC. The criteria for this is coverage (not substantial coverage) from a secondary source. By the way, regarding MySpace and vendor cites - this is why I did not cite those sources, but you seemed to question whether these albums actually existed and a site that sells it would prove that. Kevingarrity ( talk)
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete album track for forthcoming album, unsourced as usual, lacks notability, WP:MUSIC, WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unlikely to meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria. May not meet our standards, but could easily be transwiki'd to a more appropriate wiki under the GFDL. Solumeiras ( talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Filth!. — Scien tizzle 16:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
nn., "the Pork Dukes" "Kum Kleen!" 142 hits Rapido ( talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. No evidence that this term is used in reliable sources. Core desat 05:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was deleted as recreation of deleted content, but this was overturned on DRV because drafts were significantly different. Problems with original research and insufficient referencing were sufficient to renominate at AfD, however. This is a procedural nomination. IronGargoyle ( talk) 21:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Again, NN. Compwhiz II( Talk)( Contribs) 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per nomination. Henry Merrivale ( talk) 04:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to 100.7 Heart FM. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet Wikipedia's biographical criteria. This article should really be transwiki'd per GFDL to a more appropriate wiki. Solumeiras ( talk) 18:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to 100.7 Heart FM. Black Kite 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability is made, and she probably doesn't meet WP:BIO, even if her employer is notable. As per Kim Shaw and Dave Clarke (DJ), this has been listed at VfD. -- Solumeiras ( talk) 19:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete no verifiable information. Can be recreated if/when reliable sources available. Black Kite 09:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No content, no references, WP:FUTURE. fschoenm ( talk) 20:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 11:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-notable congregation without any references to establish notability. Bstone ( talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
*Oppose Per
IZAK.
Nsaum75 (
talk)
20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Oppose per
IZAK.
Culturalrevival (
talk)
00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Delete. Article fails to establish notability. --
brew
crewer
(yada, yada)
07:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
NOTE: The article, now renamed Adath Jeshurun Congregation (Minnetonka) to differentiate it from other similar sounding congregations elsewhere, is now a full article. It meets all criteria for such an article. It is requested that the nomination be withdrawn! Thank you. IZAK ( talk) 10:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment It might be worth taking a look at the discussion taking place on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Mailing lists as sources where some senior core policy editors seem willing to take a very case-by-case approach in determining what sources are reliable in a field. Such discussions are common. Flexibility in application, such as field-specific considerations in determining source reliability, are part of Wikipedia's fabric. Such flexibility should not be confused with abandoning core policy requirements, like giving articles passes from having to establish notability. Best, -- Shirahadasha ( talk) 18:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC). reply
The result was Keep, nominator withdrew. Chetblong T C 04:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete On hold
Bstone (
talk)
Bstone (
talk)
19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Non-notable congregation, does not cite and references. Deletion is in order. I am currently reviewing the article.
*Oppose per
IZAK
Nsaum75 (
talk)
20:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Oppose per
IZAK.
Culturalrevival (
talk)
00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I cannot find any reliable sources about this person. I put it to AfD for consensus. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
List of external links, the parties are already in the list on
Labour Party Members of Parliament in London --
Snigbrook
(talk)
20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete. This is not a useful navigational reference for the reader, so does not warrant a place in mainspace. If a wikiproject or an editor/ group of editors want this userfied or moved to project space, let me know. JERRY talk contribs 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
List of external links, most of these companies do not have articles -- Snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by TimVickers. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 21:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
questionable notability (aside from a known label, what is their notability?) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to legal education. JERRY talk contribs 04:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete contested prod; this was prodded by one editor, prod was removed without edit summary by another - it has been copied to wiktionary and this is a classic WP:DICDEF, which is for our sister project. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete substub bio of a tv personality best known for being on a redlink show. Fails WP:BIO. So nn we don't know when or where she was born or anything else she did - seems like a bit part player. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, although I admit this is a small consensus, the opinions here are valid and policy/guideline based. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No real claim of notability for this architecture practice - a car park and a footbridge do not count as "significant" unless proven otherwise. Unsourced peacockery which appears to be mostly advertising. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 10:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. There do appear to be a few small articles about the bridge, it won a design award and it's mentioned in at least one book, [25] [26] [27] [28] so if anything perhaps an article should be created about that--but the firm itself doesn't seem to be notable enough to require an article. DanielEng ( talk) 01:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete clearly fails WP:BIO for athletes. Black Kite 09:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The the verifiability bit of the guidelines, which is a reason for nomination and this bio reads like a vanity article with a list of achievements as if it is a CV. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 19:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Mayors of major cities are frequently kept on Wikipedia; mayors of small towns usually are not. Despite the appearance of a 5-4 no-consensus, three of the four keep votes have to be discounted as anon IPs and likely puppets of the sock or meat flavours. Bearcat ( talk) 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete local politician mayor of the fine city of 9000 souls, but ultimately not notable. It may be time to set up a notability guideline for local politicians - yes, this isn't exactly the place to discuss that - because literally many will have mentions in the local rags that no doubt some would consider as meeting WP:BIO or WP:N rather than just demonstrating further WP:BIAS toward the US/UK who have lots of local rags and they all seem to be on the internet. Just a thought... In any event, this mayor is so nn, we don't know when or where she was born, her policies, party, whether she has any real power or is a first among equals type of mayor or even how long she has been or will be mayor. Alas, the things an inquiring mind would want to know from an encyclopedic biography.. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. This article already exists properly elsewhere. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; prod notice was removed by anon IP editor without comment. No references at all. and nothing found on search engines that proves that this name has been applied to the play in question, or has achieved widespread usage. The play is adequately covered in the Super Bowl XLII article. Yes, it was a spectacular play, but this article by itself and under this title is not notable. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 18:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 11:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not explain why this subject is notable Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect. Fram ( talk) 13:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced one-liner about a student newspaper; newspapers are not inherently notable, student ones too, and there's nothing to indicate that this paper has won any meaningful awards or uncovered any great stories or is any different than the papers published at thousands of other colleges. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable third party presidential candidate. Zero hits in google news. Endorsed by the "The New American Liberty League", but no evidence that organization is notable either. Jfire ( talk) 18:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as NN, and no way to verify its importance; currently Spanish WP is no help. Allow for its re-creation when reliable sources can be found. Bearian ( talk) 16:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nn political party, there are a few hundred registered political parties in Spain and this one seems to exist more in cyberspace than in reality and hasn't won any seats apparently. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If anyone knows Spanish they could expand the article by expanding from http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acci%C3%B3n_por_la_Justicia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francium12 ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 13:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that this software is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect song title back to artist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication or sources showing that this song is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Delete No context whatsoever. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, which of course defaults to keep. No prejudice against a relist sometime in the future. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No film notability met (or asserted), possible vanity from single-purpose account. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 08:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep - The film is noticable as it was released internationally, it is not an amateur film so therefore it is not a vanity page. OOODDD ( talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Reuserfy. As of this discussion, the consensus is to delete this article based on the lack of independent, reliable sources, which means it is not verifiable. I agree that because this is a consumer product, because of its lengthy deletion history, and overall lack of sourcing, it is too easy for this to be perceived, in its current state, as advertising instead of encyclopedic. Because the creator has shown a willingness to take another stab at this, so be it. The article contents will be found for the time being at User:Ubzy/Voodoo Tiki Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Premature restoration of deleted material. Was deleted before, in Dec. 2007 (speedily, I think; it shows up in the WP:DRV logs, as a rejected candidate for restoration, but there is no pre-existing AfD log for an article by this name), with the warning that it must be fully sourced in a userspace draft before being restored. This has not been done; only very trivial facts have been sourced (I have {{ facts}}-tagged the unsourced sections). Furthermore, the article does not establish notability (though it alleges notability enough, via discussion of breadth of distribution, to perhaps survive speedy deletion). As far as content goes (not to mention style, for which it has been cleanup-tagged) it is basically just an advertisement, going on at length about the qualities and elaborate production of the commodity with no material on critical reception, popularity or other metrics of a product's notability. Was also not at all written in anything approximating encyclopedic style, full of sentence fragments and rambling redundancies, but I've personally cleaned that up a lot myself just out of charity. I do not think it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about this company/product (whether it will prove to be notable or not), but this isn't it, and the (re-)creator was warned at DRV. I think this should be userspaced again for further development. The editor responsible for it appears to have made some effort to source it, but needs to read WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT more closely and try again. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Moreover, articles about commercial businesses and products do get somewhat higher scrutiny. Wikipedia is a high visibility site. The temptation to use it for free advertising is strong. Our attempts to improve the credibility of information here mean that these things are going to face an uphill battle.
The article as it stands now is sourced entirely to Voodoo Tiki's own promotional website, and I fear that does not pass muster. Like I said, this is a consumer product. Independent coverage may well exist. I'd be happy to copy this article to a draft on your user page until such time as it can meet these tests. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - no assertion of notability, no reliable sources, possible original research, no verifiability. Houses of worship are not inherently notable. Bearian ( talk) 17:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability — Jeff G. ( talk| contribs) 17:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Black Kite 09:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability in any way Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This isn't a particularly special case and the person isn't otherwise notable. Fails WP:NOTE. The facts of the case don't warrant a special article. If it's a case of Ragging, it should merge into that article. Sadly, this young man became so distraught over being picked on at school that he decided to take his own life. Unfortunately, that story is not that uncommon, especially for young people under enormous stress in school. -- JJLatWiki ( talk) 17:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A description of videos shown on board Delta airlines doesn't - as far as I can see - satisy WP:N CultureDrone ( talk) 09:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:ORG; no significant media coverage on google:computeach. Lea ( talk) 12:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:Dictionary entry. Lea ( talk) 11:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Rationale: Essay/howto-style article, unreferenced, thematic duplicate of unit test (anything encyclopedic that could be added to this article should rather be added to unit test). Lea ( talk) 11:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Moreover, I would question whether we need quite so much granularity about the minutiae of software development or the problems of supervising software developers. That sort of thing seems to attract spam; be poorly written; full of vaguely abstract talk of "processes" and "systems". My general impression is that it constitutes a sort of tech-management-cruft. Notability is usually not an issue, since there probably is an extensive literature for any such subject you might name; readability, general interest, and sorting out legitimate topics from stealth spam are. - Smerdis of Tlön ( talk) 15:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
First part is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Latter part is a massive, unsourced trivia section of casual uses of the term. Niether is IMHO particularly useful for the project. TexasAndroid ( talk) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established; unreferenced since Nov. 2007; no significant secondary sources on google:5-lever-lock. Lea ( talk) 11:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This band has apparently released one record in South Africa. The best coverage I could find is this, not enough to pass WP:N or WP:MUSIC. Maybe there's more, but given the state of the article, is it really worth giving it the benefit of the doubt? Jfire ( talk) 17:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 06:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Insignificant. The page is a result of Wikipedia bias. If there is a page for this logo, why not a page for every other company logo? Plus, hundreds of websites have a history for their logos and change it for the holidays. LightSpeed3 ( talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No claim to notability or coverage in reliable third-party sources. A Google search yields 312 unpromising results. скоморохъ 17:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete by User:Ioeth (non-admin closure). EJF ( talk) 18:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails to establish notability for this band per WP:MUSIC. Jfire ( talk) 16:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. Google searches yield nothing. Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable record label. Undeath ( talk) 16:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Assertions of notability are enough to stave off a speedyt deletion but we expect the subjects of bio articles to have multiple independent sources both to allow verification of information and to demonstrate notability. Spartaz Humbug! 10:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability and ghits are mainly naming him in his position. No evidence of the accolades claimed by article creator almost a year ago. Travellingcari ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Chetblong T C 04:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Two names. Just not enough to sustain a "List" Vikrant 16:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition with a previously contested PROD. TexasAndroid ( talk) 16:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Does not particularly assert notability. The only product advertised on the website is in beta. Most of the top Ghits are press releases or references to various development boards that the people there have posted sl. Article was created by User:Digini, so there's a WP:COI issue here too. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied dictionary definition. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was closed as speedy delete. Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 16:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
[Non notable?] stockmarket firm, slightly spammy. Previously deleted as G11. Was prodded, but a prod cannot be used on something that was previously deleted, so I bring it here. I am neutral. J Milburn ( talk) 15:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Post-transwiki PROD removed, but still not a useful article for this project. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per discussion below. The question of whether or not to merge the content into another article can be handled through normal discussion. Non-admin close. -- jonny- m t 16:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied. PROD deleted. Recreated. (And I have restored the deleted history in line with the spirit of the contested PROD.) But still, just a dictionary definition. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Transwikied and PRODed as a dictionary definition. PROD contested saying it was not a dictinary article, but article contains nothing more than a definition. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- MCB ( talk) 22:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The first part is barely more that a dictionary definition, and has been transwikied to Wiktionary. The latter, list part, is all totally unsourced, subjective as to inclusion, and without sourcing for why any individual entry belongs on the list is a WP:OR violation as well. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect as soft redirect to Wiktionary. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dictionary definition. Already transwikied. Post-transwiki PROD removed, but still not a useful article for this project. TexasAndroid ( talk) 15:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I proded the article a while back, but it was removed and the page was moved to the title "Mathematics in Futurama". However, since January 20, there had been no attempts to expand the page and it was basically only about the "Greenwaldian Theorem" so I moved it back to that page. The "Greenwaldian Theorem" while it is supposedly accurate doesn't appear to have any notability (A google search gets 45 hits while a Google Books search gets zilch) and it's only notability is its brief appearance on a chalkboard in Futurama: Bender's Big Score. Scorpion 0422 14:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn -- Scorpion 0422 17:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Most of these characters don't have any real world notability. The ones that do (Itchy & Scratchy and Radioactive Man) already have pages. Others can easily be (or already are) merged elsewhere - Poochie to The Itchy & Scratchy Show, Malibu Stacy to List of products in The Simpsons, Fallout Boy to Radioactive Man, Lard Lad to Treehouse of Horror VI, etc. Either way, none of the characters without pages have any real world info, and notability is not inherited. Scorpion 0422 14:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
There's no point in wasting an afd if it can't be deleted, although it is amazingly stupid that I'm affected by this even though I haven't been involved in that arbcom case in any major way. Withdrawn. -- Scorpion 0422 17:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete on strength of arguments. The previous discussion was a "no consensus", the "realwolrd information" is not relevant for the article (education of the authors), it is not indicated which parts may be worth keeping or merging... On the other hand, "I support deletion because X does" is an ignorable argument as well. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I created this page about a year ago and I've decided that it's time to try to kill my own creation. It is just a random group of information - what schools the writers & characters went to, a list of schools, etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also no real world info, other than the list of what writers went to Harvard, but that is complete listcruft. -- Scorpion 0422 14:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- MCB ( talk) 22:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A failure of WP:BIO. An article on an insurance claims adjuster who is described as "one of the foremost authorities on property and insurance claims in the world." Much of the article is focused on his single book, Insurance Claim Secrets REVEALED!, published through Trafford Publishing, a vanity press. Ordering information and a link are provided. The subject is first described as having won four Grammy Awards - at odds, perhaps, with the later claim that he has "been on recordings that have won four Grammy Awards". The creation of Authorboy1, a single purpose account which is self-described as "Abigail Morgan Austin Publishing Company" on the discussion page. Victoriagirl ( talk) 14:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dear Victoriagirl:
1. I've removed the "foremost authority" sentence. 2. Trafford Publishing is a Publish On Demand (POD) publisher, not a vanity press. 3. I've revised the Grammy information to make sure both comments are consistent with each other. 4. The Authorboy1 is my comment through my publishing company name. No effort at misinformation here...I'm brand new to this forum and there are lots of the procedures I don't understand. Besides, complaining about my account name does not answer the issue. I was asking the person who made the negative comment to explain so I can answer any concerns.
Russell D. Longcore Authorboy1 ( talk) 15:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The only business on this page with any real world info is Kwik-E-Mart and all of that is already covered on its page. So this fails WP:FICT. There are some real world places named after these fictional businesses (ie. Krusty Burger) but anything notable can be merged into List of fictional locations in The Simpsons, as there is no need for two pages about locations in the show. I'm sure some will say there is no need for one page about locations on the show, but, I'm not going to afd it (yet). and -- Scorpion 0422 14:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So I feel once completed this will make for a pretty informative article. As for getting rid of it altogether the only complete articles on here writing about the businesses seen in The Simpsons are the articles on Moes and the Kwiki-Mart which you can write heaps about as they are seen regularly. But to write something about a businesses that appears on only a handful of episodes would end up with a very small article. My intentions here were simply to expand on some of the other Simpsons articles like the article on Media, Religeon, Education and Politics, I figure that if all these can have there own article why not a page on business. I also think the businesses I have written about are notable too such as The Leftorium, Bowl-A-Rama, Aztec Theater and so on the person who merged didn't even include all the businesses. Bhowden ( talk) 07:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Vanity page of a non-notable consultant. No secondary sources of any kind. Biography posted by a representative of the subject, so COI issues as well. DarkAudit ( talk) 14:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BIO. Subject of little or no notability. Redmarkviolinist Drop me a line 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:FOOTY/Notability as he has never played for a fully professional club. Being related to a famous footballer does not confer notability (as noted in the Romeo Beckham AfD). The only thing left is him being arrested on the accusation of supplying cocaine, which I don't believe makes him notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
talk 18:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Having offences deemed of interest to an intrusive press because of one's relations might be good enough for the tabloid's, but it is not encyclopaedic. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
'Keep' I thought Wikipedia was an Encylcopedia so why can we not have articles about people that have been in the news for reasons that don't frankly matter. Isn't Wikipedia ment to contribute to the world, what if somebody is looking for Rhdori Giggs, do we turn them down? No, Wikipedia is ment to help others! Sharadjalota456 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 02:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Stotfield does not exist as a village but only as a part of the town of Lossiemouth. The Lossiemouth article fully explains Stotfield as a part of Lossiemouth. All Ordnance Survey maps show that Stotfield is not an independent settlement Bill Reid | Talk 13:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Autobiographical article about non-notable subject. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence that surface is notable, or a commonly used term for the surface. No entry on MathWorld Jeodesic ( talk) 13:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, withdrawn nomination, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 21:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, IMDB entry is not nessacarially a valid claim to notability, no assertion of notability otherwise.
Mr Senseless (
talk)
04:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Taking it here, mainly to empty out Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability from March 2007. Lack of notability Montchav ( talk) 13:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merged and redirected to Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2006). Information was already there; I added an additional reference from this article. -- MCB ( talk) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like a major skirmish and does not deserve an article TheFEARgod ( Ч) 14:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
...a slang term for people who aren't in a fan scene anymore. Enough said. UsaSatsui ( talk) 03:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article on a specific piece of corporate stationary- an envelope. Non notable. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn ( talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 by Orangemike ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). cab ( talk) 04:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable YouTube series, no reliable sources. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn ( talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. He plays a game too? I don't know about that link. Delete Undeath ( talk) 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. DS ( talk) 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Lacks notability, totally reads like an advert. If anyone can find notability (and this is a primary school we're talking about here), then it should probably be deleted and start over (IMHO). SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. There are lots of popular terms we know exist and have contemporary useage, but we don't have articles about them unless it can meet WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. It's all very simple, really. JERRY talk contribs 00:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sub-sub-genre; wholly unreferenced and most likely original research. Only two of the artists listed and none of the labels even have articles here. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Daniel ( talk) 11:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Very WP:NN series. References do not provide any insight. Main prose of article, the episode synopsi and background story, do not show up any hits on google indicating WP:OR. The link to the video hosting site where the short films are shown tell me that (taken from random) Episode 3 has 5 views (including my 1 to check the views)... Scarian Call me Pat 02:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 06:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The only assertion of notability is of being a "highly media-exposed professor", but no sources are cited to support this claim, and none appear in a Google search for Enrique Dans except blogs. The external links are all to self-promotional blogs. Neparis ( talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. Non-admin closure. Maximillion Pegasus ( talk) 20:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has no references that actually mention the subject, on top of it being non-notable neologism cOrneLlrOckEy ( talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Core desat 06:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Tagged for notability since April 2007; web search reveals a few blog hits but no reliable sources that I could find. "All but ignored by the music industry at large" == fails WP:MUSIC. Jfire ( talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely non notable film. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by author, a single purpose account. J Milburn ( talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Whatever you say, but just you wait Dylcox ( talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No, i'm just saying that it's gonna be big Dylcox ( talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Chetblong T C 04:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article was created a few days ago and has been CSD tagged and prodded. Virtually every contributor to it is a SPA and they seem to do nothing but edit war over its contents. So I'm taking it to AfD to decide if it meets the WP:CORP guidelines. Polly ( Parrot) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
What is notable is that company itself did not post this entree-the stuff about what the company does was concoted by author of the article just so he could write about the three year old law suit. Law suits are a dime a dozen especially ones that are three years old and have been settled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.29.4 ( talk) 03:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fake article Dirtymics ( talk) 00:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I can find no notability to meet WP:BIO guidelines on this person. The originating editor assured me he'd work to improve the article and outline the notability beyond the subject's being a pastor at a historical church. He hasn't returned since. ju66l3r ( talk) 17:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination from a new user whos first edits were this AfD. Bernier is the Canadian Foreign Minister, a senior Cabinet position. Polly ( Parrot) 22:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC) a non-admin close. reply
Unknown insignificant political figure. Of little relavence to Canadian politics Spainhereicome ( talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply