The result was keep. some refs added & nom withdrawn.-- PeaceNT ( talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is currently unreferenced, and the breed does not appear to be even of note in its country of origin (with less than 300 individuals, according to the current article). The most comprehensive
list of sheep breeds available at this time, compiled by the Oklahoma State University Dept. of Animal Science, does not list the breed. As this article cannot reasonably be expected to ever be sourced by reliable, published sources, it is inappropriate to have an article, as outlined in
WP:V
Van
Tucky 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination Now that the article has a couple reliable sources, I don't deletion is in order.
Van
Tucky
22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Agreed, this is a worthless post. Tomic ( talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has been indef-blocked for trolling. No prejudice toward a good-faith AFD at any time. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
J Stalin This article should be deleted because this individual is completely lacking notability. There are no sources identifying notability. The one source is an article in a local paper about an upcoming article, such article are largely about up and comers and local non-notable performers. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. He is not singed by a major record label, he hasn't sold a notable amount of records, no info on record sales at all. No major news sources. Does not meet, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Boomgaylove ( talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merged and redirected by creator. Hesperian 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Conflict of interest, neologism, lack of notability Curtis Clark ( talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Are we ready to redirect Riding Halter to Bitless bridle? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this merits further discussion. If other editors write the article, the issue of COI is moot. Again, I think the overall article is within NPOV guidelines. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Aeron, all opinions here (comments aside) are to delete/merge into Bitless bridle. As you created the article, would you like to do the honors? Else, we will wait for an admin to come along and close this AfD. See Help:Merging and moving pages. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
subject of questionable notability, a memorial filled with original research whose only potential claim to notability is of fathering Lorraine Hunt Lieberson. fails WP:BIO with lack of published secondary source material. Zedla ( talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Union High School (Camas, Washington). -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable recently established high school with no page content aside from an infobox. Red ZionX 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Non admin close Happy Editing, Dusti talk to me 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yet another
diploma mill non-traditional learning institution. Very few sources exist about this institution, and what sources do exist are not exactly complimentary. A couple of directory-style listings of sub-standard schools, a news story from a few years back, and not much else - and needless to say the subject institution vigorously asserts that it is a legitimate institution of learning, per OTRS ticket 2008022110018923. Overall, probably not worth the trouble.
Guy (
Help!)
23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*I see reliable sources, recommend keep.
NonvocalScream (
talk)
02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep, as the article is indeed well sourced and Viewplain1990 hasn't really given a reason for deletion — αlεx• mullεr 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
and again! Plaine'cruft Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s — αlεx• mullεr 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
see below, we're not the history of the airline Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s — αlεx• mullεr 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
See below, no need for a year by year Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s — αlεx• mullεr 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory and doesn't need a year by year account of every year in the airline's history Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as blatant advertising. Even the "Fox news" link provided is a press release. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
does not meet wp:corp, there are no real sources only press release. This article has been created before by the same user at Global Consultants Inc. and speedied first as a copyvio then as spam. Jon513 ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
And Wikidemo has done an excellent job of using google hits of tracking out the companies’ noteworthiness and am also surprised he got hold of Collabora from UK (which ofcourse is not related to Collabera). But what about companies that may not be at the forefront of Internet News but still manage to have a notable reputation in the market whether in India or Globally.
I totally respect the feedbacks and accept the challenge to present my case. [ [13]] - again a press release but note worthy. ‘Note:’ Collabera, which has 90-100 active clients, recorded $300 million in sales in 2007. So it is big enough that way and we are funded by Oak Investment Partners - [ [14]]
Also to list out a few other clients for whom a large chunk of Application Management and online backbone is outsourced to Collabera are –
Move.com (owners of Move.com and Realtor.com),
Intermec &
JC Whitney . In Europe:
CMP Information,
Daily Telegraph &
Puma AG (Germany). So we are in many ways the brand behind the operation of some of these brands.
Collabera is a new entity (rebranded) from earlier [ GCI] and therefore may not avail as many Google hits as satisfactorily required. But if you look at the companies that have been acquired, Planetasia, IVL, Blue Hammock has been at the forefront of their business in India but serving global clients. We are also listed as 118 in the top 2000 H1 B employer in the world
I am looking forward to more discussions on this till we are satisfied on the notability of the new brand - Collabera.
203.92.58.190 (
talk)
15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Rafi Ali Khan
reply
And as for WikiDemo's comments on fair to hold my feet in the fire, it was more like i peeped into Wikipedia Article creation and someone yelled Snake and the sticks came down on my head. :-)
Rafialikhan ( talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC) That was my reply above had not signed-in (Sorry) reply
An identity is important to everything in the universe, we as humans have accepted this as the cosmological certainty. This identity that symbolizes uniqueness, respect and esteem is the right of each and every entity that is a part of the universe. Two entities cannot exist with the same name, we all can respect that, but the way they sound when spoken of by various people can be the same. herein, Collabera versus Collabora, are not just two names that can sound different, they are made up of different set of characters. Both entities being different in what they do and in what they stand for and what they will do for years to come. So comparing Collabera with another existing entity is not entirely right and should not be the reason for an AFD win. As for the true existence / notability of Collabera...i think patrons should do more careful research before ruling out the truth....Collabera with an 'e' means it stands for collaboration in all aspects in the electronic world....e for electronic.....there is no such meaning in the other Collabora that patrons have cited....all due respect to every individual...all due respect expected.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vondino ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Can we now take a new direction and look at taking Collabera our of the AFD. We can only assure everyone here that all content placed here are factual we shall monitor it to ensure that the article and content lives up to all Wikipedia standards.
203.92.58.190 ( talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be WP:Notable; I can't find anything more than commercial blog mention of this software product. Was already deleted once via CSD as WP:Spam I believe (if my memory serves me); use of subheaders as marketing points in this re-creation seem to suggest as much.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Ok I understand. :Thanks Mikem8 ( talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Mikem8 reply
The result was delete--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local public access television program Corvus cornix talk 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
One of a number of providers of IM and email archiving. Already included in Telecommunications Relay Service. Lots of ghits from "partners", no press coverage that I could find. One of article's links (Reuters) seems irrelevant, the other two are from the company itself. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS (only references are own website and record company's website). Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:A. Cloudz679 ( talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Many references from reliable sources available: [15] dissolve talk 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Administrative division henrik• talk 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dicdef (
already on Wiktionary)+unsourceable OR.
Travellingcari (
talk)
21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep as a result of moonriddengirl's edits. Wizardman 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Oddly created disambig in December originally for PeroPero, a dog occasionally seen in the manga series Kare Kano. The only other match is pop group, while the other two are Pero disambigs, but not PeroPero ones. Doesn't seem to be a needed disambig. Collectonian ( talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a hard search to filter out the other Sherman Mills but it appears to come down to one article, that doesn't assert any notability. A web search isn't much better. It's a community that's a part of East Falls, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (which doesn't appear to find it worthy of mention), not a standalone geographical place. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 11:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not that imdb is a reliable source but it's the only evidence apart from forum discussions about her role in apparently, one episode. Ghits (goes down to a total of 39) are forum posts and other non reliable sources. I'd stub it but there is no evidence of notability. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was keep; the book is clearly a reliable source. Non-admin close. Jfire ( talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to E.O. Green School shooting. Canley ( talk) 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. Does not compare with Oswald, Chapman or Cho. -- Y not be working? 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Refs are trivial mentions that don't verify notability. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Fram ( talk) 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced and completely pro-western POV. Furthermore, all of the countries listed refer to themselves as "socialist republics" in their own constitutions, and true communism (if we go by Marx and Engels) has never existed in any country on earth. The name of the political party that is in power doesn't designate the nature of the system. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
*Redirect to
List of socialist countries which presents the same information in a more historical and wider context.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Melissa Sander. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was Keep. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, issues unaddressed since April Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was already speedied - Philippe | Talk 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article claims it is a translation of another article and really should be on its own region's Wikipedia. Andreworkney ( talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge & redirect to Akira (manga). henrik• talk 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This film is merely in development; indeed, it was only announced today that development would be proceeding, and so this is more premature than most. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all three. No prejudice against redirecting the titles, I don't see what would be merged that isn't already in the articles mentioned here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by author. Article reads like a personal essay. Actually, the prod was removed and a title and signature was placed by the author. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm adding the following articles because it's they're very similar to the first page and have been added by the same editor.
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is notable, despite a single article in the Chicago Tribune -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I really sat and thought about this one, and here's what I came up with. For now, I'm going to assume good faith and hope that the list is trimmed and referenced, since it is huge at this point and causes the look of "indiscriminate". If nothing if done with the list in the next couple months, then by all means create another AfD and we will try another course of action. I disagree with any merge solely because of the size of this article and the size of like articles. Work together to make this a good list, then we'll be able to see if the salvaged list is worthy. Wizardman 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This seems to violate Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, as well as just being a very trivial list. The word "notable guest appearance" can't just be easily defined in my view. RobJ1981 ( talk) 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close (A7). Non admin AFD closure.. Gtstricky Talk or C 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about non notable actress, and is short. External links given linke to a youtube and myspace like website. Runnynose47 ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dusti talk to me 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia DiggyG ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I encourage you to check the sourcing on this article before you vote; half the links are dead, and the other half point to articles that do not meet the significant coverage criteria. DiggyG ( talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail
The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dusti talk to me 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
insufficient or questionable notability; mention in media seems passing and has no corroborating opinions in notable media - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
He's a vet and an author, but apparently a non-notable one. There's no evidence of he or his book' notability, and ghits are book listings. The publisher is a small press with a dead URL. Travellingcari ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is written on a non- notable business. The article seems to be an attempt at advertising. There are a couple of business terms defined towards the end (which seem to have nothing to do with the article) and are covered elsewhere. Gtstricky Talk or C 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Staring contest. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, non-notable. ukexpat ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Ad-like, Confusing, Spam? CWii( Talk| Contribs) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Chetblong T C 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not a notable article. Wikipedia is not for fun. It's a serious project. Mugunth( ping me!!!, contribs) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the biography of a corporate person that doesn't assert any notability other than he eventually became a colonial manager. No mention is made of what he did at the company, only a brief history of his life before then. Prod removed by author with a link to another biography. JuJube ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 09:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Notability (books) and reads like advertising. If the article is deleted, the book cover image, Image:8506048133.jpg should also be deleted (note than an IP seems to have improperly tagged it GFDL). • Anakin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Renominating because of confusion with its previous listing. DeadEyeArrow nominated it on non-notability. The one-man band that made the album was just deleted in AfD. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and moved to A. J. O'Brien. Fram ( talk) 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; removed by author. Fails notability for military officers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
fails notability per WP:MUSIC, only has one album and has participated on one album with more musics from the same recording company. Other references on the page are filler that don't advance notability. Article was already speedy deleted once by an admin (you can see the 11 February warning on the talk page of the article's creator User_talk:Ibestefyo, and the article was created on 13 February), and was recreated by the same user with no reasons given about why it should be recreated Enric Naval ( talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as I find those arguments to be stronger. Plus, since it's under arbcom sanction at this time, nothing could be done anyway. Feel free to merge or relist at afd after the case is done. Wizardman 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Predominantly non-notable one-off characters that have appeared in the television series. Fails on WP:N. treelo talk 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Page was speedy deleted 3 times, however was allowed to stay this time because it didnt have any external links. However, in 5 days, it has not been touched other than by a bot and someone adding an external spam link. It doesnt have any hope of becoming larger, and I still believe it is advertising. Queerbubbles ( talk) 14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by East718 per CSD G7, author requested deletion. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no notability RT | Talk 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
How is it no notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogyman ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, according to the creater he said, he's using YouTube as a host because he wanted to appeal to younger youtube users/audiences using comedy to address issues such as friendship in future episodes! Woogyman ( talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
One off programme not notable under wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Notability asserted, rewritten -- Step hen 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
original edit was substantial copy of http://www.jsbni.com/Pen%20Pics/JSB_PenPics.htm however, now copyedited and changed, but still carrys substantial copyright violation in the history, unsure on wheather to delete or keep. RT | Talk 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Now edited, history doesn't really matter. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN that one guy who buried stuff 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums ("not yet released" = "unreleased") are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Another contested prod for a non-notable footballer. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league. Possible WP:COI from the writer too. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Non-notable, neologism. A word someone made up in porn school one day. -- Step hen 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Google books shows only 2 ghits [27], Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G12 as WP:COPYVIO of [28]. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete explicitly fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — αlεx• mullεr 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Some prior discussion: Talk:Easy_to_Assemble#Proposed_Deletion_2008-02-15. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS. No hint is google news search [29]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, although the article does need cleanup including in text citations. Marked as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Step hen 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film maker. An article that looks like a cross between a vanity piece and a resume with no references/sources for verifiability. WebHamster 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Evident from conversation, the article may need to be retitled and/or merged, a decision which might take place at Talk:'And' theory of conservatism. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable neologism. Most of the sources given in the article are blogs. Google search gives 23 ghits [33], but do not provide reliable source by which notability can be established. Google books gives one ghit [34]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per improvements to article. No prejudice against relisting as this is a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N. Google search shows no reliable source to establish notability [35]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. No significant coverage, no reliable source addresses the person in detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage, no third party reliable source addresses the band directly in detail. Google news search gives no hint [39]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Encountered this using random page - Non notable, References are to organisations own web-pages (1&3), a dead link (2) and an article written by the companies managing director(4). Article is also promotional in nature User A1 ( talk) 13:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of sources and redundancy to List of Philippine television ratings for 2008 Lenticel ( talk) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The original author of this article, User:RingPOPmom, has asked that it be deleted. Her rationale is on User talk:Orangemike Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Quoted from User talk:Orangemike so AFD log has the full rationale:
Didn't think I had to give reasons why I deleted my own input. Thought it was only for other people's comments that I had to justify. I just want to delete the damn article. Has given me nothing but problems since I started it. RingPOPmom ( talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This article was orginaly given a speedy deletion not notable tag, however - it's author told that it is a clearly significant company, as shown from the references. However, most of these references are just passing uses of the company's name (as pointed out in the talk page) RT | Talk 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Subject of this article has yet to play a professional game. As mentioned below having a squad number for a professional team and still not actually playing is not enough to pass notability. Most of the keep arguements below rely far too heavily on crystal balling. - Djsasso ( talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
3rd nomination for deletion. The player fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and has been deleted twice before, he is yet to play football at professional level English peasant 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Black Kite 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Can anybody explain why is this person notable and when has competing in a road-rally made a driver notable other than those who competed and is already notable before that. I have attempted to CSD but an editor removed the tag, so therefore I'll have o choice but to nominate this. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't see what is notable about this magazine Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's being still being published which is at least somewhat notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.95 ( talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was close and relist due to interference by a sockfarm ( CU). - Jéské ( v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Only blog references, which fail WP:RS. A google search on the name gives no non-blog hits. Soman ( talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello, I have gatherd more refferences as well, including the ones already posted
* http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1088710
* http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061124/asp/frontpage/story_7043800.asp
Most are from The News and are indicating that Sabitha Kumari is Leading The Maoists. Sabitha is Incharge of many Operations that are being carried in Andhra Pradesh see [53] and She made it on Front Page on News cast The Telegraph see [54] and [55] indicates she was leading attacks. Woman Sabitha Kumari seems to be popular and should be notable, she is mentioned as a Legenary Comrade on Maoists Website [56] .
However I can name you Wiki examples that are less popular than S.K.
-- Jawan101 ( talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Jawan101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note -- Right here see in the link DNA [57] it says Investigating officials are of the opinion that this new trend has evolved after 23-year old Sabita Kumari was unanimously elected as the commander-in-chief of the Maoist action squad of West Bengal" and further it says Born in Prabira village of Jharkhand and a science graduate from Dultongunj College, Kumari joined the Maoists in 2000. She is on the Chattisgarh most-wanted list and several cases are registered against her"
Theres more about her on the BlogSpot about her information when she was born etc... on Naxal websites as well. All these are from the News. so are you telling me shes not notable when she comes on the news frequently and also known as Legendary Sabita Kumar comrade a.k.a Commander of Andhra Pradesh district and west bengal etc.. i will get more Refs if you want -- Jawan101 ( talk) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable white nationalist website. A Google test yields very few results. Flash94 ( talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was a difficult debate to synthesise - but in the end I conclude that a Merge to Firefly_(TV_series)#Music is appropriate. I note the helpful suggestion by PC78 that a {{ Tracklist}} can be used to avoid clutter in the main article. It is not my intention to complete the merge but if PC78 or another editor could do so without cluttering the main Featured Article that would be much appreciated. -- VS talk 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An article on the soundtrack of a minor TV series, which contains nothing other than a track listing for the excellent reason that there is essentially nothing else to say. Every TV show has a soundtrack, this one does not appear to have any independent significance at all. Guy ( Help!) 07:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
merge There is very little in the article, and that could easily be placed in the main article. The comment about the "common criticism" about a missing track should be ommitted unless it is cited, though. I think the track listing should also be left off. I don't think that leaves very much, just a note about the release dates and formats. StephenBuxton ( talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, BLP, unsourced. Black Kite 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Slanderous unsourced article. I think the purpose is simply to defame this person. A google search on "Joshua Minton" & Homosexual brings no relevant results to the person in this article. Althena ( talk) 07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
After over a year, this page provides no citations of its topic's notability, half the text seems quoted from one of the linked article, and there are POV issues obvious in the first 2 lines. The last year of this article indicates that it is unlikely to be improved. Althena ( talk) 07:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. нмŵוτн τ 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The question of Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is already touched upon (without the undue weight that this article carries) in the main article about him. Whether that section needs expansion is another issue, but there is no need for a separate article. Dethme0w ( talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. I don't see any good reason to delete it. It's a valuable historical resource. It would take somebody a considerable amount of effort to compile the same information. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Wwwhatsup. Exuberant ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, in absence of any deletion argument, advising the currently inactive nominator nevertheless about WP:POINT. Tikiwont ( talk) 10:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I have nominated Omega Phi Gamma, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Phi Gamma. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cruzer8 ( talk) 06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable neologism. No legitimate citations given. Repeat after me, boys and girls: Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of Intel Celeron microprocessors. Tikiwont ( talk) 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All the information in this page is already in List of Intel Celeron microprocessors. Also, no other individual CPU models have their own pages. Imperator3733 ( talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Chetblong T C 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Smells like a hoax to me. No reliable sources are present, and I was unable to find any. Nothing checks out. Either it never happened, or it happened and nobody cared. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect and merge — αlεx• mullεr 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I simply have to read this book. Too bad it's not notable. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Additionally, has no reliable sourcing. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Per WP:NFF, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. According to sify movie news, the shoot of the film will take place in and around Kochi and Kollam some time in April (2008). -- Avinesh Jose T 05:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial product. Reads as an advertisement and is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
(Undecided between media/music and organizations, sorry). AFDing this article because it fails to meet WP:N, has no references, and is blatant advertisement. (If you choose to keep this article, maybe think about merging it with the school article instead?) <3 bunny 04:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article makes no assertion that this congregation has any particular notability. -- Eliyak T· C 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus; default to Keep - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Ad. Non-notable company. Corvus cornix talk 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
What makes this company notable is the popularity of its subsidiaries. The largest subsidiary, for example, has over 10,000 members. "If the subsidiaries are so popular and notable, why just just write articles about them?" you ask. A description of the subsidiaries would be incomplete without the context of this larger entity, Affinity Labs. A section about PoliceLink has been added to the Affinity Labs article to farther flesh it out. The article is too short, and as a result a "stub" tag has been added so that as people search for Affinity Labs, the article can be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teckdiva ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An applicable analogy can be Monster as the U.S. and Texas as a state. Texas needs its own article because it is independent, with its own inner workings just as much as it is ruled by a higher governing power. Affinity Labs is a state in the Union of Monster Worldwide, with its community sites being populated cities.
The result was Keep. Obviously this is a long-running debate, but the main reason I have decided on keep is that, besides there being more keep "votes" than delete (and votes are not the be-all-and-end-all of any AFD), there seems to be no majority consensus to delete. There is enough of an argument to keep the article, and as suggested, systematic bias may be the issue in terms of referencing. As a closing note, I would look to improve the article and fix its problems than re-nominate it soon; I can't see a fourth AFD attempt suddenly creating a deletion consensus. Esteffect ( talk) 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Before we begin, let me state: Yes I know this has been nominated twice before. However I feel the last AfD wasn't closed appropriately, I've tried yet again to clean up this article and bring it in to line with policies and guidelines, however it seems impossible. In addition I don't feel the last close by a non-admin was appropriate as lots of claims were made in the AfD by the people wanting to keep the article but no one bothered to provide any evidence to support their opinions and since then no one has done anything to address the concerns with this article
Simply put if people want this article kept, they need to provide the required sources and not simply make claims that an article meets wikipedia's criteria when this article very clearly doesn't. Multiple editors have attempted to clean this up (see the previous AfD) and the ones who have put the most time in to it don't see how this article belongs here. At the very best a mention should be made about this on the Futaba Channel article or in the internet memes article. But currently none of the content is suitable for merging as it really isn't source (yes there are some sources there, but most of those should be removed as they're just infoseek pages) and is mostly original research. Crossmr ( talk) 03:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's just a definition, without much hope of expansion. Time to give it the boot. (Addendum} In fact, Wiktionary has a Glossary of atmospheric reentry where it would fit in quite well. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable biography — αlεx• mullεr 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable enough to justify his having his own article. If we were to create articles for every high school coach in America, Wikipedia would be swamped. And the fact that he mentored John Irving does not make him notable in and of itself. Juansidious ( talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, with no prejudice against merging, however merging is a "non-AfD" discussion better suited to the talkpages. In addition, merge suggestions exist here for three separate articles (making it a "no consensus to merge") - Gordon Pogoda, Hannah Montana, and Little Miss Sunshine. If you are non-admin and need access to the contents and history for a merge, please let me know on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Written by an editor with clear POV issues. The song has been in a notable movie and TV show, but it was recorded by a non-notable artist. Bringing to the community for a decision. Glass Cobra 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to do anything really, as there doesn't seem to have been any interest in this discussion. No prejudice against a renomination, but in the interest of the backlog, closing this debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
NN website, no evidence that the site meets WP:N or WP:WEB. Also nominating The Ovi Magazine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is apparently a different website, also not meeting WP:N or WP:WEB that has the same logo but different content. Both articles have been edited largely by users with obvious conflicts of interest. Mango juice talk 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was After relisting the result still shows a consensus to Delete. -- VS talk 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No independent source, and as written notability is questionable. Unless notability shown independently, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This programming language / application does not seem to be sufficiently notable, due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Most of the article appears to consist of instructions on how to use the language. -- Snigbrook (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all per consensus. The titles of the songs will be redirected to their respective articles for search capabilities. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable duet. First pair of duet partners recorded but did not release it; second pair of duet partners released it but it failed to chart. I would have merged this to an album, if not for the fact that two different sets of artists have recorded it. A search for sources turned up nothing notable about this song at all. (Note to closing admin: If this page is deleted, please delete Category:Dawn Sears songs as well.)
Also listing other Patty Loveless songs which aren't notable because they didn't chart, and don't seem to be the subject of any sources:
(Note: I tried redirecting these songs to their respective albums but my redirects were undone, so I'm listing them here.)
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The fact is that if you didn't WANT to delete them, we wouldn't be here. Saying it's because you are an editor is irrelevant. As I said before, if Wikipedia wants to be complete and be the source of information about Ms. Loveless' music, then having her songs listed at the discretion of the editor is not the way to go. Censoring information benifits no one. Also just because you can't find information, doesn't mean others can not. I have known Ms Loveless and her husband for over 20 yers and I aware of the pride she puts into each song she selects to be included on each of her albums, as well as some of the background which I included on the pages I createdd. Either be complete and accurate, or have none of them there and let that information be available elsewhere on the web as it exists with varying degrees of accuracy. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, I couldn't help but notice that this does seem to be a bit of a retaliation.... Apparantley he believes that it's either his way or the highway.... Bwmoll3 ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
You stated you wanted to delete songs other than ones that didn't chart. Why is it that YOU are choosing which ones the delete or not delete? Either be complete or just delete them all.. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you can't read your own words that you wrote earler at the top of this page, ".... I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits....", I feel very sorry for you. "I would recommend..." mans that You are deciding...and it certainly sounds like a power trip... Who gives you that right?. And yes, the fact is that because I deleted your redirects and stated that these songs are not "insigificant", and clashed with your opinion, that you, in turn, selected the articles for deletion. That, my friend, is acting on a power trip and acting out of spite because you disagreed with my opinion.. which happens to be different than yours. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Then I strongly suggest that you withdraw this entire charade and put everything back the way you found it, before going off to recommend these pages for deletion because you didn't like that I reveresed your redirects. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutley correct.. WP:MUSIC directly states "... While it is not policy, ...." This is not trying to redefine the meaning of "is". It is simply a Guideline.... This is twice now that misstatements have been made by User:TenPoundHammer to justify his opinion... Bwmoll3 ( talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I submit that there is -no- consensus here and that things be put back the way they were before all of this started Bwmoll3 ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Peerapp. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - disputed prod. There are no reliable sources that are about this word, rather than simply use the word. The article thus fails WP:NEO as a non-notable neologism. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No such game has been announced. Article is full of unsourced info and speculation. IF such a game gets announced and enough infomation is avaiable, it can get a article in the future. TJ Spyke 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines set out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO. No non-trivial media coverage. Asiansinmedia ( talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merged to net-centric -- Step hen 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable neologism RogueNinja talk 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep, and merge with net-centric. Well defined, widely covered in reliable sources. Needs refs, fine otherwise. The subconcept network-centric warfare is well defined and well documented. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (speedy; sources introduced). Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a blip on the history of eBay. no need for its own article. if anything, merge into EBay ZimZalaBim talk 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — αlεx• mullεr 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't tell for the life of me if this article is about "Red Ball" or M. Dale Newton, as the title asserts. M. Dale Newton is apparently not notable] with only 8 ghits as well so it doesn't pass WP:CORP. Red Ball sounds like it could be notable but they don't appear to have an article to merge this content to. Travellingcari ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, even after relisting, defaulting to keep -- Step hen 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability of this transmitter. Ghits are pics and wiki mirrors. Travellingcari ( talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No context given for notability, only contributers have questionable COI issues. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. This is a procedural closing; the article was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard at 17:09, 21 February 2008 as G3 Vandalism. Darkspots ( talk) 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Card game invented this year with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, 0 g-hits related to the name, pure WP:CRYSTAL. -- Caldorwards4 ( talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus for delete - and merge comments are various specific - to my mind at this stage = default keep. -- VS talk 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a guide. All sources are within the context of the how-to section, otherwise this is a dictionary definition about a nonnotable term. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep List of 21st century lunar eclipses shows that these events are not particularly rare, but not unduly common either. The article doesn't just list the event but adds verifiable encyclopaedic astronomical information too, such as the cycles, other alignments, and images, all of which suggest the basis of complete encyclopaedic coverage. -- Step hen 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A previous AFD decided that an article on a total lunar eclipse was notable, but is an article on a partial lunar eclipse notable? From what I could find, this is the first article on a partial lunar eclipse. -- CWY2190 T C 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE: I added a stat table and some graphics for the eclipse event. Still could use more work on content when I get a chance. I really do appreciate this discussion on deletion. While I strongly support keeping it, I accept the notability of any event as debatable. Mostly I see eclipse at two levels - the event itself which is historic and out of the ordinary and beautiful to watch, full or partial, even a penumbral eclipse is worthy to watch. Then a second level is the science and math behind the predictions of eclipse, and the fascinating reality of Saros series that repeat so faithfully and allowed ancient humans to predict long before computer or modern math. Having tables brings out visibility of the patterns, but individual articles help promote interest in the tables, which are harder to understand from first glance. Myself I tend to be more attracted to pictures first, and get some basic understanding of something and then wonder about more hidden patterns like the cycles. I think creating articles on up-coming eclipses helps promote interest in specific events AND can help pull kids into science and math behind the event. So hope consensus will be to keep and lets see what such articles can include. The NASA and other expert websites are great in themselves, but Wikipedia can have hundreds of interested people helping to improve the quality - I mean I copied a NASA time table to wikipedia and within 24 hours there was message on the talk page about and error that I copied from the NASA page. NASA is great, but doesn't allow the dynamic content and participation of Wikipedia. Anyway, hopefully my graphics will help a little. :) Tom Ruen ( talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So how long does this discussion go on for? And who decides to close it? It says "5 days" here - Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Tom Ruen ( talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable bass player. Fails WP:MUSIC, no independent sources, no references other than his band's website and myspace. Mr Senseless ( talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Additional articles:
Delete The band he is in is even not notable enough to have its own article. It is not judicious for the bass player of the band, who seems to not have done anything else, to have his own article. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I added two more resources
Chopperdudep (
talk)
18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
C'mon why cant you just leave it be, you guys give no chance to promote an up and coming band. They are on the verge of making it big.
Honestly, im not trying to be a jerk but why does it have to be deleted?
Chopperdudep (
talk)
14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep. some refs added & nom withdrawn.-- PeaceNT ( talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is currently unreferenced, and the breed does not appear to be even of note in its country of origin (with less than 300 individuals, according to the current article). The most comprehensive
list of sheep breeds available at this time, compiled by the Oklahoma State University Dept. of Animal Science, does not list the breed. As this article cannot reasonably be expected to ever be sourced by reliable, published sources, it is inappropriate to have an article, as outlined in
WP:V
Van
Tucky 00:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination Now that the article has a couple reliable sources, I don't deletion is in order.
Van
Tucky
22:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
Agreed, this is a worthless post. Tomic ( talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep. Nominator has been indef-blocked for trolling. No prejudice toward a good-faith AFD at any time. — CharlotteWebb 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
J Stalin This article should be deleted because this individual is completely lacking notability. There are no sources identifying notability. The one source is an article in a local paper about an upcoming article, such article are largely about up and comers and local non-notable performers. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. He is not singed by a major record label, he hasn't sold a notable amount of records, no info on record sales at all. No major news sources. Does not meet, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles Boomgaylove ( talk) 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merged and redirected by creator. Hesperian 02:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Conflict of interest, neologism, lack of notability Curtis Clark ( talk) 23:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Are we ready to redirect Riding Halter to Bitless bridle? -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I think this merits further discussion. If other editors write the article, the issue of COI is moot. Again, I think the overall article is within NPOV guidelines. -- AeronM ( talk) 02:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Aeron, all opinions here (comments aside) are to delete/merge into Bitless bridle. As you created the article, would you like to do the honors? Else, we will wait for an admin to come along and close this AfD. See Help:Merging and moving pages. -- Una Smith ( talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
subject of questionable notability, a memorial filled with original research whose only potential claim to notability is of fathering Lorraine Hunt Lieberson. fails WP:BIO with lack of published secondary source material. Zedla ( talk) 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Union High School (Camas, Washington). -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable recently established high school with no page content aside from an infobox. Red ZionX 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Non admin close Happy Editing, Dusti talk to me 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yet another
diploma mill non-traditional learning institution. Very few sources exist about this institution, and what sources do exist are not exactly complimentary. A couple of directory-style listings of sub-standard schools, a news story from a few years back, and not much else - and needless to say the subject institution vigorously asserts that it is a legitimate institution of learning, per OTRS ticket 2008022110018923. Overall, probably not worth the trouble.
Guy (
Help!)
23:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
*I see reliable sources, recommend keep.
NonvocalScream (
talk)
02:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep, as the article is indeed well sourced and Viewplain1990 hasn't really given a reason for deletion — αlεx• mullεr 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
and again! Plaine'cruft Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s — αlεx• mullεr 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
see below, we're not the history of the airline Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s — αlεx• mullεr 21:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
See below, no need for a year by year Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge content and redirect into British Caledonian in the 1970s — αlεx• mullεr 21:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory and doesn't need a year by year account of every year in the airline's history Viewplain1990 ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as blatant advertising. Even the "Fox news" link provided is a press release. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
does not meet wp:corp, there are no real sources only press release. This article has been created before by the same user at Global Consultants Inc. and speedied first as a copyvio then as spam. Jon513 ( talk) 22:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
And Wikidemo has done an excellent job of using google hits of tracking out the companies’ noteworthiness and am also surprised he got hold of Collabora from UK (which ofcourse is not related to Collabera). But what about companies that may not be at the forefront of Internet News but still manage to have a notable reputation in the market whether in India or Globally.
I totally respect the feedbacks and accept the challenge to present my case. [ [13]] - again a press release but note worthy. ‘Note:’ Collabera, which has 90-100 active clients, recorded $300 million in sales in 2007. So it is big enough that way and we are funded by Oak Investment Partners - [ [14]]
Also to list out a few other clients for whom a large chunk of Application Management and online backbone is outsourced to Collabera are –
Move.com (owners of Move.com and Realtor.com),
Intermec &
JC Whitney . In Europe:
CMP Information,
Daily Telegraph &
Puma AG (Germany). So we are in many ways the brand behind the operation of some of these brands.
Collabera is a new entity (rebranded) from earlier [ GCI] and therefore may not avail as many Google hits as satisfactorily required. But if you look at the companies that have been acquired, Planetasia, IVL, Blue Hammock has been at the forefront of their business in India but serving global clients. We are also listed as 118 in the top 2000 H1 B employer in the world
I am looking forward to more discussions on this till we are satisfied on the notability of the new brand - Collabera.
203.92.58.190 (
talk)
15:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Rafi Ali Khan
reply
And as for WikiDemo's comments on fair to hold my feet in the fire, it was more like i peeped into Wikipedia Article creation and someone yelled Snake and the sticks came down on my head. :-)
Rafialikhan ( talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC) That was my reply above had not signed-in (Sorry) reply
An identity is important to everything in the universe, we as humans have accepted this as the cosmological certainty. This identity that symbolizes uniqueness, respect and esteem is the right of each and every entity that is a part of the universe. Two entities cannot exist with the same name, we all can respect that, but the way they sound when spoken of by various people can be the same. herein, Collabera versus Collabora, are not just two names that can sound different, they are made up of different set of characters. Both entities being different in what they do and in what they stand for and what they will do for years to come. So comparing Collabera with another existing entity is not entirely right and should not be the reason for an AFD win. As for the true existence / notability of Collabera...i think patrons should do more careful research before ruling out the truth....Collabera with an 'e' means it stands for collaboration in all aspects in the electronic world....e for electronic.....there is no such meaning in the other Collabora that patrons have cited....all due respect to every individual...all due respect expected.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vondino ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Can we now take a new direction and look at taking Collabera our of the AFD. We can only assure everyone here that all content placed here are factual we shall monitor it to ensure that the article and content lives up to all Wikipedia standards.
203.92.58.190 ( talk) 19:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not appear to be WP:Notable; I can't find anything more than commercial blog mention of this software product. Was already deleted once via CSD as WP:Spam I believe (if my memory serves me); use of subheaders as marketing points in this re-creation seem to suggest as much.-- Pgagnon999 ( talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Ok I understand. :Thanks Mikem8 ( talk) 03:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Mikem8 reply
The result was delete--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local public access television program Corvus cornix talk 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
One of a number of providers of IM and email archiving. Already included in Telecommunications Relay Service. Lots of ghits from "partners", no press coverage that I could find. One of article's links (Reuters) seems irrelevant, the other two are from the company itself. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 18:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:RS (only references are own website and record company's website). Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:A. Cloudz679 ( talk) 22:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. Many references from reliable sources available: [15] dissolve talk 10:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Administrative division henrik• talk 18:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Dicdef (
already on Wiktionary)+unsourceable OR.
Travellingcari (
talk)
21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep as a result of moonriddengirl's edits. Wizardman 20:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 03:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Oddly created disambig in December originally for PeroPero, a dog occasionally seen in the manga series Kare Kano. The only other match is pop group, while the other two are Pero disambigs, but not PeroPero ones. Doesn't seem to be a needed disambig. Collectonian ( talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a hard search to filter out the other Sherman Mills but it appears to come down to one article, that doesn't assert any notability. A web search isn't much better. It's a community that's a part of East Falls, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (which doesn't appear to find it worthy of mention), not a standalone geographical place. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 11:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Not that imdb is a reliable source but it's the only evidence apart from forum discussions about her role in apparently, one episode. Ghits (goes down to a total of 39) are forum posts and other non reliable sources. I'd stub it but there is no evidence of notability. Travellingcari ( talk) 21:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was keep; the book is clearly a reliable source. Non-admin close. Jfire ( talk) 05:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to E.O. Green School shooting. Canley ( talk) 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
WP:BLP1E. Does not compare with Oswald, Chapman or Cho. -- Y not be working? 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Refs are trivial mentions that don't verify notability. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 15:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Fram ( talk) 09:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced and completely pro-western POV. Furthermore, all of the countries listed refer to themselves as "socialist republics" in their own constitutions, and true communism (if we go by Marx and Engels) has never existed in any country on earth. The name of the political party that is in power doesn't designate the nature of the system. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 20:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
*Redirect to
List of socialist countries which presents the same information in a more historical and wider context.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
21:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Melissa Sander. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was Keep. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert notability, issues unaddressed since April Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was already speedied - Philippe | Talk 03:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This article claims it is a translation of another article and really should be on its own region's Wikipedia. Andreworkney ( talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge & redirect to Akira (manga). henrik• talk 18:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very good, practical reasons. Many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. This film is merely in development; indeed, it was only announced today that development would be proceeding, and so this is more premature than most. In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun. Steve T • C 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all three. No prejudice against redirecting the titles, I don't see what would be merged that isn't already in the articles mentioned here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, removed by author. Article reads like a personal essay. Actually, the prod was removed and a title and signature was placed by the author. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm adding the following articles because it's they're very similar to the first page and have been added by the same editor.
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 03:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't think this is notable, despite a single article in the Chicago Tribune -- lucasbfr talk 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. I really sat and thought about this one, and here's what I came up with. For now, I'm going to assume good faith and hope that the list is trimmed and referenced, since it is huge at this point and causes the look of "indiscriminate". If nothing if done with the list in the next couple months, then by all means create another AfD and we will try another course of action. I disagree with any merge solely because of the size of this article and the size of like articles. Work together to make this a good list, then we'll be able to see if the salvaged list is worthy. Wizardman 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This seems to violate Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, as well as just being a very trivial list. The word "notable guest appearance" can't just be easily defined in my view. RobJ1981 ( talk) 18:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close (A7). Non admin AFD closure.. Gtstricky Talk or C 21:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is about non notable actress, and is short. External links given linke to a youtube and myspace like website. Runnynose47 ( talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dusti talk to me 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia DiggyG ( talk) 17:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I encourage you to check the sourcing on this article before you vote; half the links are dead, and the other half point to articles that do not meet the significant coverage criteria. DiggyG ( talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail
The result was Keep Non Admin Close Dusti talk to me 18:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
insufficient or questionable notability; mention in media seems passing and has no corroborating opinions in notable media - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
He's a vet and an author, but apparently a non-notable one. There's no evidence of he or his book' notability, and ghits are book listings. The publisher is a small press with a dead URL. Travellingcari ( talk) 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is written on a non- notable business. The article seems to be an attempt at advertising. There are a couple of business terms defined towards the end (which seem to have nothing to do with the article) and are covered elsewhere. Gtstricky Talk or C 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Staring contest. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic, non-notable. ukexpat ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Ad-like, Confusing, Spam? CWii( Talk| Contribs) 16:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Chetblong T C 01:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not a notable article. Wikipedia is not for fun. It's a serious project. Mugunth( ping me!!!, contribs) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is the biography of a corporate person that doesn't assert any notability other than he eventually became a colonial manager. No mention is made of what he did at the company, only a brief history of his life before then. Prod removed by author with a link to another biography. JuJube ( talk) 16:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Fram ( talk) 09:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Notability (books) and reads like advertising. If the article is deleted, the book cover image, Image:8506048133.jpg should also be deleted (note than an IP seems to have improperly tagged it GFDL). • Anakin (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 11:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Renominating because of confusion with its previous listing. DeadEyeArrow nominated it on non-notability. The one-man band that made the album was just deleted in AfD. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 15:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and moved to A. J. O'Brien. Fram ( talk) 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; removed by author. Fails notability for military officers. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 15:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
fails notability per WP:MUSIC, only has one album and has participated on one album with more musics from the same recording company. Other references on the page are filler that don't advance notability. Article was already speedy deleted once by an admin (you can see the 11 February warning on the talk page of the article's creator User_talk:Ibestefyo, and the article was created on 13 February), and was recreated by the same user with no reasons given about why it should be recreated Enric Naval ( talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Canley ( talk) 03:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, as I find those arguments to be stronger. Plus, since it's under arbcom sanction at this time, nothing could be done anyway. Feel free to merge or relist at afd after the case is done. Wizardman 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Predominantly non-notable one-off characters that have appeared in the television series. Fails on WP:N. treelo talk 14:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 11:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Page was speedy deleted 3 times, however was allowed to stay this time because it didnt have any external links. However, in 5 days, it has not been touched other than by a bot and someone adding an external spam link. It doesnt have any hope of becoming larger, and I still believe it is advertising. Queerbubbles ( talk) 14:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by East718 per CSD G7, author requested deletion. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no notability RT | Talk 14:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
How is it no notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogyman ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Well, according to the creater he said, he's using YouTube as a host because he wanted to appeal to younger youtube users/audiences using comedy to address issues such as friendship in future episodes! Woogyman ( talk) 14:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
One off programme not notable under wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordy Why Have You Foresaken Me ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Notability asserted, rewritten -- Step hen 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
original edit was substantial copy of http://www.jsbni.com/Pen%20Pics/JSB_PenPics.htm however, now copyedited and changed, but still carrys substantial copyright violation in the history, unsure on wheather to delete or keep. RT | Talk 14:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep Now edited, history doesn't really matter. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN that one guy who buried stuff 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums ("not yet released" = "unreleased") are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 14:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Another contested prod for a non-notable footballer. Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league. Possible WP:COI from the writer too. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Non-notable, neologism. A word someone made up in porn school one day. -- Step hen 00:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V. Google books shows only 2 ghits [27], Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G12 as WP:COPYVIO of [28]. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete explicitly fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete — αlεx• mullεr 23:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Some prior discussion: Talk:Easy_to_Assemble#Proposed_Deletion_2008-02-15. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS. No hint is google news search [29]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, although the article does need cleanup including in text citations. Marked as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. -- Step hen 00:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable film maker. An article that looks like a cross between a vanity piece and a resume with no references/sources for verifiability. WebHamster 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Evident from conversation, the article may need to be retitled and/or merged, a decision which might take place at Talk:'And' theory of conservatism. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete non-notable neologism. Most of the sources given in the article are blogs. Google search gives 23 ghits [33], but do not provide reliable source by which notability can be established. Google books gives one ghit [34]. Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per improvements to article. No prejudice against relisting as this is a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete fails WP:N. Google search shows no reliable source to establish notability [35]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO. No significant coverage, no reliable source addresses the person in detail. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage, no third party reliable source addresses the band directly in detail. Google news search gives no hint [39]. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 08:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Encountered this using random page - Non notable, References are to organisations own web-pages (1&3), a dead link (2) and an article written by the companies managing director(4). Article is also promotional in nature User A1 ( talk) 13:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete due to lack of sources and redundancy to List of Philippine television ratings for 2008 Lenticel ( talk) 12:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The original author of this article, User:RingPOPmom, has asked that it be deleted. Her rationale is on User talk:Orangemike Λua∫ Wi se ( Operibus anteire) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Quoted from User talk:Orangemike so AFD log has the full rationale:
Didn't think I had to give reasons why I deleted my own input. Thought it was only for other people's comments that I had to justify. I just want to delete the damn article. Has given me nothing but problems since I started it. RingPOPmom ( talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
This article was orginaly given a speedy deletion not notable tag, however - it's author told that it is a clearly significant company, as shown from the references. However, most of these references are just passing uses of the company's name (as pointed out in the talk page) RT | Talk 11:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Subject of this article has yet to play a professional game. As mentioned below having a squad number for a professional team and still not actually playing is not enough to pass notability. Most of the keep arguements below rely far too heavily on crystal balling. - Djsasso ( talk) 22:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply
3rd nomination for deletion. The player fails WP:FOOTY/Notability and has been deleted twice before, he is yet to play football at professional level English peasant 12:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Black Kite 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Can anybody explain why is this person notable and when has competing in a road-rally made a driver notable other than those who competed and is already notable before that. I have attempted to CSD but an editor removed the tag, so therefore I'll have o choice but to nominate this. Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't see what is notable about this magazine Moosato Cowabata ( talk) 18:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's being still being published which is at least somewhat notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.11.95 ( talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was close and relist due to interference by a sockfarm ( CU). - Jéské ( v^_^v +2 Pen of Editing) 07:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Only blog references, which fail WP:RS. A google search on the name gives no non-blog hits. Soman ( talk) 09:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Hello, I have gatherd more refferences as well, including the ones already posted
* http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1088710
* http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061124/asp/frontpage/story_7043800.asp
Most are from The News and are indicating that Sabitha Kumari is Leading The Maoists. Sabitha is Incharge of many Operations that are being carried in Andhra Pradesh see [53] and She made it on Front Page on News cast The Telegraph see [54] and [55] indicates she was leading attacks. Woman Sabitha Kumari seems to be popular and should be notable, she is mentioned as a Legenary Comrade on Maoists Website [56] .
However I can name you Wiki examples that are less popular than S.K.
-- Jawan101 ( talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Jawan101 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Note -- Right here see in the link DNA [57] it says Investigating officials are of the opinion that this new trend has evolved after 23-year old Sabita Kumari was unanimously elected as the commander-in-chief of the Maoist action squad of West Bengal" and further it says Born in Prabira village of Jharkhand and a science graduate from Dultongunj College, Kumari joined the Maoists in 2000. She is on the Chattisgarh most-wanted list and several cases are registered against her"
Theres more about her on the BlogSpot about her information when she was born etc... on Naxal websites as well. All these are from the News. so are you telling me shes not notable when she comes on the news frequently and also known as Legendary Sabita Kumar comrade a.k.a Commander of Andhra Pradesh district and west bengal etc.. i will get more Refs if you want -- Jawan101 ( talk) 12:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable white nationalist website. A Google test yields very few results. Flash94 ( talk) 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was a difficult debate to synthesise - but in the end I conclude that a Merge to Firefly_(TV_series)#Music is appropriate. I note the helpful suggestion by PC78 that a {{ Tracklist}} can be used to avoid clutter in the main article. It is not my intention to complete the merge but if PC78 or another editor could do so without cluttering the main Featured Article that would be much appreciated. -- VS talk 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
An article on the soundtrack of a minor TV series, which contains nothing other than a track listing for the excellent reason that there is essentially nothing else to say. Every TV show has a soundtrack, this one does not appear to have any independent significance at all. Guy ( Help!) 07:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
merge There is very little in the article, and that could easily be placed in the main article. The comment about the "common criticism" about a missing track should be ommitted unless it is cited, though. I think the track listing should also be left off. I don't think that leaves very much, just a note about the release dates and formats. StephenBuxton ( talk) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete, BLP, unsourced. Black Kite 09:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Slanderous unsourced article. I think the purpose is simply to defame this person. A google search on "Joshua Minton" & Homosexual brings no relevant results to the person in this article. Althena ( talk) 07:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
After over a year, this page provides no citations of its topic's notability, half the text seems quoted from one of the linked article, and there are POV issues obvious in the first 2 lines. The last year of this article indicates that it is unlikely to be improved. Althena ( talk) 07:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. нмŵוτн τ 20:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The question of Baden-Powell's sexual orientation is already touched upon (without the undue weight that this article carries) in the main article about him. Whether that section needs expansion is another issue, but there is no need for a separate article. Dethme0w ( talk) 06:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. I don't see any good reason to delete it. It's a valuable historical resource. It would take somebody a considerable amount of effort to compile the same information. Wwwhatsup ( talk) 08:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I agree with Wwwhatsup. Exuberant ( talk) 22:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed as well as a list of venues and cities. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge (history keep). Merge action to be completed by others. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Simply a list of bands that performed. Perhaps a simple redirect to Warped Tour is in order, such as the Ozzfest article does. Jmlk 1 7 06:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, in absence of any deletion argument, advising the currently inactive nominator nevertheless about WP:POINT. Tikiwont ( talk) 10:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I have nominated Omega Phi Gamma, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Phi Gamma. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Cruzer8 ( talk) 06:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested speedy, then prod. Non-notable neologism. No legitimate citations given. Repeat after me, boys and girls: Wikipedia is not for something made up in school one day. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 06:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to List of Intel Celeron microprocessors. Tikiwont ( talk) 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
All the information in this page is already in List of Intel Celeron microprocessors. Also, no other individual CPU models have their own pages. Imperator3733 ( talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Chetblong T C 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Smells like a hoax to me. No reliable sources are present, and I was unable to find any. Nothing checks out. Either it never happened, or it happened and nobody cared. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 05:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect and merge — αlεx• mullεr 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I simply have to read this book. Too bad it's not notable. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 05:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Explicitly fails WP:NFF. Additionally, has no reliable sourcing. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Per WP:NFF, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. According to sify movie news, the shoot of the film will take place in and around Kochi and Kollam some time in April (2008). -- Avinesh Jose T 05:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial product. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable commercial product. Reads as an advertisement and is completely unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a Panasonic catalog. Wikipedia is not a digital camera guide. Mikeblas ( talk) 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
(Undecided between media/music and organizations, sorry). AFDing this article because it fails to meet WP:N, has no references, and is blatant advertisement. (If you choose to keep this article, maybe think about merging it with the school article instead?) <3 bunny 04:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The article makes no assertion that this congregation has any particular notability. -- Eliyak T· C 03:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus; default to Keep - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Ad. Non-notable company. Corvus cornix talk 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
What makes this company notable is the popularity of its subsidiaries. The largest subsidiary, for example, has over 10,000 members. "If the subsidiaries are so popular and notable, why just just write articles about them?" you ask. A description of the subsidiaries would be incomplete without the context of this larger entity, Affinity Labs. A section about PoliceLink has been added to the Affinity Labs article to farther flesh it out. The article is too short, and as a result a "stub" tag has been added so that as people search for Affinity Labs, the article can be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teckdiva ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
An applicable analogy can be Monster as the U.S. and Texas as a state. Texas needs its own article because it is independent, with its own inner workings just as much as it is ruled by a higher governing power. Affinity Labs is a state in the Union of Monster Worldwide, with its community sites being populated cities.
The result was Keep. Obviously this is a long-running debate, but the main reason I have decided on keep is that, besides there being more keep "votes" than delete (and votes are not the be-all-and-end-all of any AFD), there seems to be no majority consensus to delete. There is enough of an argument to keep the article, and as suggested, systematic bias may be the issue in terms of referencing. As a closing note, I would look to improve the article and fix its problems than re-nominate it soon; I can't see a fourth AFD attempt suddenly creating a deletion consensus. Esteffect ( talk) 03:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Before we begin, let me state: Yes I know this has been nominated twice before. However I feel the last AfD wasn't closed appropriately, I've tried yet again to clean up this article and bring it in to line with policies and guidelines, however it seems impossible. In addition I don't feel the last close by a non-admin was appropriate as lots of claims were made in the AfD by the people wanting to keep the article but no one bothered to provide any evidence to support their opinions and since then no one has done anything to address the concerns with this article
Simply put if people want this article kept, they need to provide the required sources and not simply make claims that an article meets wikipedia's criteria when this article very clearly doesn't. Multiple editors have attempted to clean this up (see the previous AfD) and the ones who have put the most time in to it don't see how this article belongs here. At the very best a mention should be made about this on the Futaba Channel article or in the internet memes article. But currently none of the content is suitable for merging as it really isn't source (yes there are some sources there, but most of those should be removed as they're just infoseek pages) and is mostly original research. Crossmr ( talk) 03:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots ( talk) 00:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
It's just a definition, without much hope of expansion. Time to give it the boot. (Addendum} In fact, Wiktionary has a Glossary of atmospheric reentry where it would fit in quite well. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable biography — αlεx• mullεr 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This person is not notable enough to justify his having his own article. If we were to create articles for every high school coach in America, Wikipedia would be swamped. And the fact that he mentored John Irving does not make him notable in and of itself. Juansidious ( talk) 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, with no prejudice against merging, however merging is a "non-AfD" discussion better suited to the talkpages. In addition, merge suggestions exist here for three separate articles (making it a "no consensus to merge") - Gordon Pogoda, Hannah Montana, and Little Miss Sunshine. If you are non-admin and need access to the contents and history for a merge, please let me know on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Written by an editor with clear POV issues. The song has been in a notable movie and TV show, but it was recorded by a non-notable artist. Bringing to the community for a decision. Glass Cobra 03:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to do anything really, as there doesn't seem to have been any interest in this discussion. No prejudice against a renomination, but in the interest of the backlog, closing this debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
NN website, no evidence that the site meets WP:N or WP:WEB. Also nominating The Ovi Magazine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is apparently a different website, also not meeting WP:N or WP:WEB that has the same logo but different content. Both articles have been edited largely by users with obvious conflicts of interest. Mango juice talk 07:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was After relisting the result still shows a consensus to Delete. -- VS talk 04:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No independent source, and as written notability is questionable. Unless notability shown independently, delete. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
-- Charlie Huang 【遯卋山人】 21:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This programming language / application does not seem to be sufficiently notable, due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Most of the article appears to consist of instructions on how to use the language. -- Snigbrook (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete all per consensus. The titles of the songs will be redirected to their respective articles for search capabilities. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable duet. First pair of duet partners recorded but did not release it; second pair of duet partners released it but it failed to chart. I would have merged this to an album, if not for the fact that two different sets of artists have recorded it. A search for sources turned up nothing notable about this song at all. (Note to closing admin: If this page is deleted, please delete Category:Dawn Sears songs as well.)
Also listing other Patty Loveless songs which aren't notable because they didn't chart, and don't seem to be the subject of any sources:
(Note: I tried redirecting these songs to their respective albums but my redirects were undone, so I'm listing them here.)
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 03:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The fact is that if you didn't WANT to delete them, we wouldn't be here. Saying it's because you are an editor is irrelevant. As I said before, if Wikipedia wants to be complete and be the source of information about Ms. Loveless' music, then having her songs listed at the discretion of the editor is not the way to go. Censoring information benifits no one. Also just because you can't find information, doesn't mean others can not. I have known Ms Loveless and her husband for over 20 yers and I aware of the pride she puts into each song she selects to be included on each of her albums, as well as some of the background which I included on the pages I createdd. Either be complete and accurate, or have none of them there and let that information be available elsewhere on the web as it exists with varying degrees of accuracy. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 09:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Yes, I couldn't help but notice that this does seem to be a bit of a retaliation.... Apparantley he believes that it's either his way or the highway.... Bwmoll3 ( talk) 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
You stated you wanted to delete songs other than ones that didn't chart. Why is it that YOU are choosing which ones the delete or not delete? Either be complete or just delete them all.. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 01:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
If you can't read your own words that you wrote earler at the top of this page, ".... I would recommend keeping the #1's and maybe most of the Top 10 hits....", I feel very sorry for you. "I would recommend..." mans that You are deciding...and it certainly sounds like a power trip... Who gives you that right?. And yes, the fact is that because I deleted your redirects and stated that these songs are not "insigificant", and clashed with your opinion, that you, in turn, selected the articles for deletion. That, my friend, is acting on a power trip and acting out of spite because you disagreed with my opinion.. which happens to be different than yours. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 08:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Then I strongly suggest that you withdraw this entire charade and put everything back the way you found it, before going off to recommend these pages for deletion because you didn't like that I reveresed your redirects. Bwmoll3 ( talk) 13:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutley correct.. WP:MUSIC directly states "... While it is not policy, ...." This is not trying to redefine the meaning of "is". It is simply a Guideline.... This is twice now that misstatements have been made by User:TenPoundHammer to justify his opinion... Bwmoll3 ( talk) 12:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I submit that there is -no- consensus here and that things be put back the way they were before all of this started Bwmoll3 ( talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Fram ( talk) 12:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Peerapp. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 ( talk) 13:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Canley ( talk) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - disputed prod. There are no reliable sources that are about this word, rather than simply use the word. The article thus fails WP:NEO as a non-notable neologism. Otto4711 ( talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No such game has been announced. Article is full of unsourced info and speculation. IF such a game gets announced and enough infomation is avaiable, it can get a article in the future. TJ Spyke 02:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines set out in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO. No non-trivial media coverage. Asiansinmedia ( talk) 17:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merged to net-centric -- Step hen 23:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable neologism RogueNinja talk 18:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep, and merge with net-centric. Well defined, widely covered in reliable sources. Needs refs, fine otherwise. The subconcept network-centric warfare is well defined and well documented. Mostlyharmless ( talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (speedy; sources introduced). Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a blip on the history of eBay. no need for its own article. if anything, merge into EBay ZimZalaBim talk 01:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — αlεx• mullεr 02:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I can't tell for the life of me if this article is about "Red Ball" or M. Dale Newton, as the title asserts. M. Dale Newton is apparently not notable] with only 8 ghits as well so it doesn't pass WP:CORP. Red Ball sounds like it could be notable but they don't appear to have an article to merge this content to. Travellingcari ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus, even after relisting, defaulting to keep -- Step hen 23:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence of notability of this transmitter. Ghits are pics and wiki mirrors. Travellingcari ( talk) 20:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 14:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No context given for notability, only contributers have questionable COI issues. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete. This is a procedural closing; the article was speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard at 17:09, 21 February 2008 as G3 Vandalism. Darkspots ( talk) 23:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Card game invented this year with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp ( talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC) reply
No sources, 0 g-hits related to the name, pure WP:CRYSTAL. -- Caldorwards4 ( talk) 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus for delete - and merge comments are various specific - to my mind at this stage = default keep. -- VS talk 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a guide. All sources are within the context of the how-to section, otherwise this is a dictionary definition about a nonnotable term. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep List of 21st century lunar eclipses shows that these events are not particularly rare, but not unduly common either. The article doesn't just list the event but adds verifiable encyclopaedic astronomical information too, such as the cycles, other alignments, and images, all of which suggest the basis of complete encyclopaedic coverage. -- Step hen 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
A previous AFD decided that an article on a total lunar eclipse was notable, but is an article on a partial lunar eclipse notable? From what I could find, this is the first article on a partial lunar eclipse. -- CWY2190 T C 00:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
NOTE: I added a stat table and some graphics for the eclipse event. Still could use more work on content when I get a chance. I really do appreciate this discussion on deletion. While I strongly support keeping it, I accept the notability of any event as debatable. Mostly I see eclipse at two levels - the event itself which is historic and out of the ordinary and beautiful to watch, full or partial, even a penumbral eclipse is worthy to watch. Then a second level is the science and math behind the predictions of eclipse, and the fascinating reality of Saros series that repeat so faithfully and allowed ancient humans to predict long before computer or modern math. Having tables brings out visibility of the patterns, but individual articles help promote interest in the tables, which are harder to understand from first glance. Myself I tend to be more attracted to pictures first, and get some basic understanding of something and then wonder about more hidden patterns like the cycles. I think creating articles on up-coming eclipses helps promote interest in specific events AND can help pull kids into science and math behind the event. So hope consensus will be to keep and lets see what such articles can include. The NASA and other expert websites are great in themselves, but Wikipedia can have hundreds of interested people helping to improve the quality - I mean I copied a NASA time table to wikipedia and within 24 hours there was message on the talk page about and error that I copied from the NASA page. NASA is great, but doesn't allow the dynamic content and participation of Wikipedia. Anyway, hopefully my graphics will help a little. :) Tom Ruen ( talk) 01:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC) reply
So how long does this discussion go on for? And who decides to close it? It says "5 days" here - Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure. Tom Ruen ( talk) 20:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable bass player. Fails WP:MUSIC, no independent sources, no references other than his band's website and myspace. Mr Senseless ( talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
Additional articles:
Delete The band he is in is even not notable enough to have its own article. It is not judicious for the bass player of the band, who seems to not have done anything else, to have his own article. Parent5446( Murder me for my actions) 00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) reply
I added two more resources
Chopperdudep (
talk)
18:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
reply
C'mon why cant you just leave it be, you guys give no chance to promote an up and coming band. They are on the verge of making it big.
Honestly, im not trying to be a jerk but why does it have to be deleted?
Chopperdudep (
talk)
14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
reply