The result was Merge content into The Hills Have Eyes (series) and redirect. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Requested by 203.143.248.114. StaticGull Talk 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was article was speedily deleted. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album by non-notable performer ( William Girard) whose own article is nom'd for speedy deletion. There is no speedy criterion for albums, and in fact, speedy deletion is specifically prohibited for albums, even if the artist is nn. Corvus cornix talk 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable author. All of the information seems to be a rework of the bio on her website, including the part about liking hot bubble baths. BradV 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an apparently non-charting, non-notable individual song. No reliable secondary sources that establish notability have been provided, and the only rationale provided is that it has received airplay and is by two notable artists. That's not notability per WP:MUSIC's section on individual songs. Erechtheus ( talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I haven't nominated an article for deletion in a bit, so bear with me here. I cannot find anything to substantiate this article in order to qualify its claim of "notability" I'm a huge football fan, but this completely unreferenced article about one play in one game, at the collegiate/non professional level no less, has me baffled as to its inclusion here as a separate article. I've done the appropriate google searches in earnest, and I'm only turning up Wikipedia mirrors. I recommend deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. I didn't realize that Give a Little Love was just an international release of their 1986 album Heartland. I have cleaned up the page and moved it to Heartland (The Judds album); given that Heartland produced two Number Ones and was certified platinum, it is no doubt a notable album. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources exist for this album. It's not listed on All Music Guide or anywhere else that I can find.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. - auburnpilot talk 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This band doesn't even exist yet. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix talk 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources to establish notability or verifiability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability, no references, possible self-promotion (created by Pprasadnair ( talk · contribs). Delete. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is verifiable and can meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for way too long! The closest thing to a reference is the connection to the movie Mean Girls but the book in that isn't even called a "Slam book" but apparently a "burn book". I can't find any encyclopedic sources for this subject. As it stands there is no verifiability. It may be that these books do exist but without references we have to assume that the analysis is pure original research. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, since it's been stubbed.. - Philippe 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Confused, no-context essay about an organisation or something else involved with wrestling. Its "references" defy comprehension. Even if this turns out to exist and be notable, it still fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sandstein 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software article full of images which should also probably be deleted. Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This group fails WP:MUSIC; judging by All Music Guide, they have released only one full-length album (She's Mature) on what seems to be a small indy label. But the talk page suggests that things are controversial here. B. Wolterding ( talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nom (non-admin close). BradV 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Primary school of dubious notability. The school's web page says it has an enrollment of 45 students and 30 part-time in the nursery. BradV 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Change to redirect. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline OnlyinTheatresThisChristmas ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; no prejudice against recreation. - Philippe 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be provided to show that filming has begun. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Obvious nonsense.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Likely hoax. No references of any kind, no relevant Google hits at all. Looks like something someone made up. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn -- Roleplayer ( talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reason for the contest was "got an outstanding in Ofsted". I don't see why a primary school article containing nothing other than the name of the school and where it is should be kept just because it got an "outstanding" in its Ofsted report. Roleplayer ( talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
500 copy compilation album featuring minor bands, released by a redlink record label. No reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with the comment "deprod please take to afd for consences please". J Milburn ( talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. If someone has actual information about the guy, feel free to recreate the article with some assertion of notability. - Wafulz ( talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This article is only one sentence, and that sentence asserts no notability. Ani Mate 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Ani Mate 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously speedied, I've decided to give this one a chance at AFD, just in case... A band article with no independant sourcing, and IMHO no real indication given of notability. TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I WP:PRODded this article about a Mardi Gras crew for lack of notability. The PROD was contested with comment: "all MG crews are probably N." I disagree. As it stands, this is a local club with 300 members. Many such clubs exist (even when restricting to Mardi Gras, Carnival, Fastnacht etc. groups) and they would certainly not automatically pass WP:ORG, in the absence of some truly convincing secondary sources. However, I found only some mentioning in the local press, and directory-style announcements. B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination has been withdrawn. Davewild ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion of this article. I stand by my reasoning of
WP:V and
WP:RS deficiencies but it seems pretty clear that my interpretation of those two policies, especially the latter, is quite different than that of the more active editors in this area of expertise.
SWik78 (
talk •
contribs) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This song from
Mariah Carey's album
E=MC² is claimed to be the next single. The article lacks
verification through
reliable sources that it will, in fact, be released as a single. Although it was performed at a concert in Japan, please notice previous claims of upcoming singles from that album based on such incomplete information:
[9],
[10] and others.
SWik78 (
talk •
contribs) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Keep - Isn't
This and
That enough proof?? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
J.s.a.s. (
talk •
contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
*I get your point, but u can see her shooting the video....if thats not enough proof, i dont know what is....
J.s.a.s. (
talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely in-universe; essentially a guide to finding Easter eggs, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not for. I'm sure eeggs.com or some other wiki will gladly take such a list though. Wafulz ( talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a producer who has produced 1 million songs (an unsourced statement of course). Gives 5 references but none are articles with non-trivial coverage about this guy, per WP:MUSIC... most are just track listings. We need better sources, otherwise the article should be deleted. Rividian ( talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Philippe 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a non notable game. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
It isn't notable enough to have an article as it's just a mixtape Shadyaftrmathgunit ( talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per BAND. The band is playing the Warped Tour, but there are at least 85 bands on the official list, so I don't feel that it is a strong enough assertion of notability, being that they are not a headliner. Being on Warped is not an automatic N, either, as quite a few bands on the comps (since 1998) have no articles, and the total band list is much larger than the comp album list. This band has opened for artists, which is no big deal for a band - local bands open shows all the time, and I don't know that the headliner has anything to do with that process as opposed to the venue booker. Most tellingly, all their listed shows are Denver-area, which is where they are from, meaning that they are a local band that has not toured outside of their city. Prod was removed by a Denver-area IP who has never edited anything save that article, which means there may be a COI issue here as well. MSJapan ( talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both - Nabla ( talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
nn high school band of a current indie musician (Anthony Green). The article freely admits the band went nowhere, and the notability policy states that notability is not inherited - Green is notable as part of and because of his band Circa Survive (and that's questionable, IMO, but not up for debate here), not as a solo artist past or present. Unsourced article, prod removed on this and the album by an IP as its only two edits. MSJapan ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the album article as an NN album of a NN band.
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable film, no sources listed. TN‑ X- Man 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, Tru Thoughts overhwlmingly, bands kept owing lack of discussion, with a humble suggestion that AfDs aren't fit for more than 2 or 3 closely linked topics at a time. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable label; sources given are primary or Discogs, not reliable.
Also nominating related musicians and albums::
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was previously speedy deleted under the name Adam seth nelson. The subject of the article is an actor turned public relations person. The article is long on name dropping and short on references. A search for reliable sources turns up nothing to substantiate notability. The only Google News result on a search for "Adam Seth Nelson" in quotesis a wedding announcement. Whpq ( talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A browser-based cricket management game with less than 10,000 members and minimal to no reliable sources; of the three cited references, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the last is a one-paragraph mention on a specialty sports management game website. I see nothing here that helps this pass WP:WEB other than its connection to Hattrick - and if that's the notability, perhaps this should be merged there instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Possibly the most petty deletion I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And that's actually saying something, because I've seen some petty crap in my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.65.222 ( talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT - a Palestinian deported from Canada as a security risk. Clarityfiend ( talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close as redirect. The article is borderline A1/A3 material as a one-liner with no context or information, but given the depth of discussion at the main page a redirect is just as useful as deletion. Sher eth 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Purely speculation at this stage, and the article doesn't even mention that. There is a Goonies 2 video game, that was supposed to be a sequel to the film which already exists The_Goonies_II Ged UK ( talk) 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, owing to no hint of consensus, but an editorial merge may be helpful. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article, as written, reads like an advertisement for the product; I consider it unlikely to be salvageable. The subject of the article is a niche market tool for clinical radiation dosimetry. (Note that the article describes in detail how to obtain insurance reimbursement for the product, but offers scant comment on the device's operatation—even mention of the type of dosimeter employed is omitted.) While our dosimetry article could use expansion, per WP:NOTCATALOG there is no need for Wikipedia to be a catalog of dosimetry products and services.
The article was created by User:Smg2008, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been the creation of this article and links to it from high traffic articles like breast cancer and prostate cancer (see Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75). This article was originally PRODded on 5 July; the PROD tag was removed today by the logged-out original author, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. (In case of any ambiguity, I'll note for the closing admin that my not-vote is to delete this not-article.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - well researched arguments of notability - Peripitus (Talk) 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:MUSIC because the artist does not have any charting music, and the indie label upon which notability might rest relies on her and only two other artists for its notability (they cannot support each other for notability!) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software ju66l3r ( talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software ju66l3r ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Company is probably notable but this seems highly promotional. Sources are numerous but selfpublished or press releases. Editor may have COI. Triwbe ( talk) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and feed to the sandworms, noting nonetheless that cruft is indeed a meaningless word in AfDs. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Crufty topic with no independent sources and no evidence of notability. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Rescue Me characters. - Philippe 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
In-univese biography of a fictional character. This topic is completely OR and unreferenced, and does not establish the notability of the character. Removing the OR material leaves us with no content for the article, so I'm listing it for deletion. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Neither Hamarkameratene's squad listings nor the unofficial list of Norwegian international players mention him. Although the article links to the website of a guy named Tore Rønningen, no information can be found anywhere on his football career. 96T ( talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Random neologism. This is an encyclopedia, not wikiquote or wiktionary (not that it would be appropriate there either). ZimZalaBim talk 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The coverage is trivial, and there's nothing to indicate this this movement is substantial, substantive, or encyclopedic. - Philippe 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no reliable sources that such a movement even exists other than a few Yahoo groups and an essay by someone described as a satirist; notability is not shown and reliable sources do not seem to exist. Large portions of the article are clear original research and essay ( WP:SOAP) Article should redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States, if anything. Stlemur ( talk) 09:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's a couple of sources that seem credable:
Iveri R. ( talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)— Iveri R. ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Ah ha! I was about to concede my position. But sources found.
Basically, the committee set up in 2005 called "Move On California" to explore California secession got the most press coverage (it appears to have since disbanded) and otherwise secession reflects a popular cultural fantasy, often satirical, yet genuine sentiment none the less. The article does need to be rewritten to reflect to real scope of the "movement" and its cultural and political context- highest affinity following conservative Republican success in the 2002 and 2004 national elections. -- David Barba ( talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Quoting Notability guidelines: "News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services."
The California Aggie, Solan.com, and CNSNews.com are independent of the "movement" and associated groups/individuals in question. The other sources reflect opinions, notable to the sentiment of California secession under discussion (Patt Morrison is not a nobody in California public discourse). Your point about sources: The blogs linked are not the sources- they are reproductions of the articles actually published in reputable sources- LA Times, Daily Trojan ect. It is otherwise difficult to acquire the entire texts from archive for demonstration purposes- to prove what they actually said. If you can help in this regard it would be appreciated. The blogs are not being cited, the newspapers are. Again you are subjectively characterizing this coverage as trivial- your opinion, not the guidelines. Please direct your criticism to rewriting the article.-- David Barba ( talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria:
1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.
2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).
(1) is clearly met by the sources provided. You are characterizing these sources, from reputed outlets, as "insubstantial, unreliable", selectively judging sources based on personal assessment of content rather than notability.-- David Barba ( talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Note, also WP:UNDUE, which is where we started and which entirely sums things up for me, quote:
Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
To closing admin, note also the vote stacking above. Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Stlemur, the editorial articles included in that list (I believe only the California Aggiee and CNSNews.com are strict news reports) constitute public debate (that's what editorials are), apart of the historical record- even if you and I may find some silly. Some additional sources "How to Secede From Jesusland, Without Really Fighting" SF Weekly, "Political groups want California to secede Union" Daily Titan, "Free California: is independence the answer? " by Robert Nanninga, "Group Explores California Secession" by Jeff Morrissette. But to further assure you there is the documentary A State of Mine (2008) featuring the Move On California group.
Debate, your point is mute in this debate (about deletion) but refers us to another discussion- one I totally agree with having- as to whether and how this article ought to be merged with another more appropriate main article- made into a "ancillary article". And about prominent adherents- Jeff Morrissette founded the since disbanded group Move On California and the current head of the Californians for Independence is Kyle Ellis, attendant to the 2007 Chattanooga 2nd Secessionist Convention put on by the Middlebury Institute wiki: Middlebury Institute. I also hope the large number of texts by different authors shows that this sentiment is/was more popular than a few crackpots. For future reference altering an article or merging it with another in order to better conform with Wikipedia standards is always preferred as opposed to ought right removal of material, apart of operating in good faith of which making false accusations of vote stacking is not. The democratic experiment of Wikipedia is about maintaining an open mind and interest in the unfamiliar.-- David Barba ( talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Murge in to Califonia or even Atzlan if it's Mexican by nature.-- 86.29.253.81 ( talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The Front Page 2 -- Taboo Tongue ( talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wording reads like a public relations puff piece and primarily deals with a companies products and marketing, not a bibliography. The cut-and-pasting of the web page [27] that until recently appeared in the article has been deleted.
The result was speedy redirected for now seems best. The full article remains available in history but in its present state this is superfluous. Suggest use of {{ under construction}} when resurrected to avoid further crossed wires. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is an exact copy of Indian National Army's controversy section. Since the original article is quite good and does not require to be broken in subpages this article can be deleted. gppande «talk» 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Future TV channel with absolutely no assertion of notability or any references whatsoever. A google search brings back far too few hits to be notable. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Roleplayer ( talk) 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If notability is established at a later date, it can be recreated. - Philippe 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. A google search brought back 4 hits, too few for this to be at all notable. In contesting the PROD I was informed that I had got the name wrong and that I should have searched on the original name, for which I got 28 hits. Still not enough, imo. Roleplayer ( talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Is a timeline revealing a plot for a series, is most fancruft and serves little encyclopedic value to wikipedia Angel Emfrbl ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep owing to no consensus. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no sources independent of the site itself, and fails the specific criteria laid out at WP:WEB. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete this article. This article contains pure speculation with no references to back up those rumors. While it is appropriate to post information that may or may not happen with respect to a future album, there must be some reference to the origin of such rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRoman1976 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Since they may have a lot of material published under a by-line on the web, the notability of professional writers and journalists can be tricky to understand. Most of the sources cited by this article are things written by Mr Biado himself, which does not confer him with wide notability through independent coverage by reliable sources which have published pieces in which he is the subject. There has also been odd, steady vandalism. A Philippines IP editor has tagged it as spam and as a joke, hinting something here is likely amiss. The article even quotes his Friendster profile. What's that about? Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as obvious advertising. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:SPAM, reads like an advertisement, no sources. Renee ( talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Philippe 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unverifiable. If this character does really exist, I'm sure he's been very careful to keep out of any reliable sources that we can get access to. The OCNUS reference is really just a blog, and it quotes the News of the World which is more famous for pics of topless girls than actual news. Igor would make a cool web comic character though ;-) — FIRE! in a crowded theatre... 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I was unable to find any sources that defined this phrase or make it WP:NOTABLE. This article is almost a WP:DICTDEF, an "interconnect agreement" is an agreement to interconnect two networks. It has been a stub since it was created in 2005. Before I proposed the speedy-delete, I tried to think of how to expand this and couldn't think of anything, nor could I think of a good target to redirect. I checked for similar articles to see what I could expand this stub with, but couldn't find similarly used phrases such as "sales agreement", "purchasing agreement", "marketing agreement", "property agreement". WP:SIZE says that if an article stays this small for more than a few months, you should think about merging or something. Wrs1864 ( talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sailing boat Thetrick ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Shōjo. Sandstein 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't see any good reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. It is all about descriptions on the Japanese term for 'virgin' unlike Shōjo. Appletrees ( talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sources, we gotta have sources.. - Philippe 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not only no google hits for title, but frgments of the first line and one middle line get nothing. Nothing even remotely similar in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited from numerous manuscripts by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899). 7 vols., or the newer EChaucer at the University of Maine. Originally copied from an anon creation in 2005 at Simple Wikipedia. T L Miles ( talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per " Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs" and WP:OR. It wouldn't be acceptable even on the album Cheers since there are no references to back up all of this. Do U(knome)? yes...| or no · 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, can't use prod tag because an admin removed it (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie ☆ S93 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wholly redundant to Category:Emo musical groups (both sort alphabetically), which is what List of emo bands and List of emo groups redirects to. Sceptre ( talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion stated according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According to guidelines, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. --neon white talk 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sandstein 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax, there were no baronets in the 13th century. References do not check out, for example, this is all thepeerage.com has to say on people named Glaister. Also nominating Glaister family as the only thing apparently notable is the supposed barony/baronetcy. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay / original research / how to guide / fork of existing articles. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 10:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No viable assertion of notability for this book. As for saying it "inspired the 'Not happy John!' campaign, I suspect it is more likely to have been the other way around. I'm am dubious over that claim and would need to see some evidence. Moondyne 09:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD contested because "experience shows that deletion of high schools will certainly be contested, so prod is inappropriate". Non-notable high school. Fails WP:SCHOOLS. Wolfer68 ( talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article does not go beyond plot summary, violating WP:NOT#PLOT; plus, the topic seems to fail inclusion guidelines ( WP:BK). The only point it WP:BK#Criteria it might meet is #1; but for that, sources are missing. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding ( talk) 08:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is based on a self-published book. Much of it is WP:OR, anything that isn't should be at Alfred Webre Doug Weller ( talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable band, prod removed because "has references that show notability". Only reference that works is for an announcement of a gig in a major newspaper, trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has nothing other then an infobox with an image and some information which isn't sourced and fails to state anything that would make this school notable.
Bidgee (
talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep - The subject is notable enough. There is no consensus to delete it. I note that the AfD was made by an inexperienced user, but the article should be judged on its merit regardless of who nominated it for deletion. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 08:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, clearly meets the notability guidelines. Since the AfD started more sources have been added, though BLP concerns mean any controversial content will need to be extremely well sourced. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. -- Rob ( talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to connected sum; merge as required from the history. Sandstein 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Other editors and I discussed the problems with this article long ago, but none of us got around to AFD'ing it the first time. In summary, 1) the term "anti-knot" appears to be a neologism, not used in any of the references, and I couldn't find a suitable reference using Google Scholar. 2) the content appears to be partly bogus, partly vague/speculative. The first proof assumes what it is trying to prove. The second uses a magical "knot energy" that does exactly what is needed. It's fair to say that the property needed of this knot energy is nontrivial and most likely an open problem. The "proof" given seems to be OR synthesized from the three references. 3) the purpose of this page is to explain that "anti-knots" in fact do not exist. This is in fact a well-known basic result (as explained in knot sum), so there isn't anything more to be said about the topic. C S ( talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in reliable sources. All I'm finding are lyrics and forums and rumors.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per the sources y'all have found.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep, following an ongoing lack of consensus, which may be tilting towards keep. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Orangemike per CSD G4 as recreation of deleted material. WilliamH ( talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, advertising, re-creation of deleted content. Probably speedy anyway. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom, early consensus that a statement of great inherited wealth alone is both an assertion of importance under CSD and if this has been reported in reliable sources, is notable. I suggest the content could be helpfully merged into Hetty Green but this should be dependent on editor consensus. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleted as CSD A7, in DRV some editors may have felt the text's mention of wealth was an assertion of significance or importance. Fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale ( talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Merging is left as an editorial decision.. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable children's song. No chance of passing
WP:MUSIC ;). Google search reveals that the song exists, but no one has ever thought to write about it before. --
Mark
Chovain 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete, given the only keep comments came from SPA accounts with very limited contribution histories. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biographical article. I have searched for sources about this person but I have been unable to find any connection between the person's name and the foundation he reportedly founded. I previously userfied this article because it was created by User:Hsbrown00 and the subject's initials would make him H. S. Brown. As it turns out, User:Hsbrown00 claims not to be the subject, asked that this article stop being deleted (two other admins have each deleted it once), and claimed that there are sources. So I am taking this to WP:AFD now for other editors' viewpoints. Please note that the User:Hsbrown00 page has not been edited since it was userfied; thus, it is not certain that the article is a conflict of interest/autobiography. Regardless, though, it looks appropriate for deletion per WP:BIO due to lack of verification and sources. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article should be kept. I have searched for sources about this person and have been able to locate a connection between the person and the foundation on www.temple.edu, the person and Gloria Brown within the Philadelphia Dailynews database in an article published on March 20, 1998, the person and Marc Mezvinsky in a diagram page in a pdf file posted by Goldman Sachs. Although the article lacks the neccessary verification and extensive references, the person and entry seems creditable and approriate. I can update some of the references with the information I have discovered and edit the entry this evening. User:Jellystomach —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Jellystomach ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The AFD should be deleted. The article just needs to be updated with resources and external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplefeinstein ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Maplefeinstein ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep The article needs to be updated with references but the article itself does make claim to notability of the subject. --Maplefeinstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplefeinstein ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was MERCY KILLING this AFD. I suggest pursuing a rename and a rewrite, since it's very, very clear that there's no consensus to delete. (This deletion closing brought to you by the Judeoislamochristiathebuddhist Cabal, dominating the Earth for somewhere between 4001 and 4.54 billion years.) - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree with Frank. A renaming is a reasonable compromise (if this ends to keep). Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
*Rename or merge Merge or Keep only if renamed The analogy to
Reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president is apt. A title like
Criticisms of Israeli occupation or something would be NPOV, but putting the word "apartheid" in the article title itself is inflammatory. Regarding the concern that people will do a Wikipedia search for "Israel apartheid," just put in a redirect or something. --
Jaysweet (
talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Those who use the analogy argue that...Several critics extend the analogy to include...Those who reject the analogy argue that...Addressing the ramifications of making this analogy 53 faculty members from Stanford University have stated: "The apartheid analogy is false and breeds conflict"; as for the analogy itself they conclude that...Some accept parts of the analogy...
The result was keep, but some more sources would be helpful. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Mixtape: Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment even Wired has run an article on this mixtape: http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/interview-rappe.html as did the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601752.html?hpid=topnews I think we've clearly passed the bar for notability... time to close this. ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Change to redirect. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable as an individual artist, redirect to Deadly Venoms. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Unusual Close. This product was just announced; there's no relevance to WP:CRYSTAL here. Whether this article should be merged with iPhone is a different debate. As for why I'm speedily closing this (which I'll admit is highly unorthodox), I think it's very silly to have a massive AfD tag blighting an article that will soon be seeing a lot of eyes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Speculation about a future product with no substantial facts, and no references. Notability not asserted. Roleplayer ( talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to locate any reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Not notable, not released to radio. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable single, currently only on YouTube Esanchez( Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
article is unsourced and notability has not been established. Appears to be a "walled garden" with Patrick Hunout and The Social Capital Foundation, all three unsourced and each attempting to prop up the others. Madagascar periwinkle ( talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle ( talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
— 62.235.215.231 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It's an established fact that there is a growing interest in the activities of The Social Capital Foundation and its ideals particularly among academics. I think that the arguments presented by some for its deletion are subjective and too biased to be taken seriously. TSCF is a scientifically sound institution with a serious agenda that aims to promote peoples' lives in their communities through their main asset: Social Capital. TSCF confernce themes (see the latest theme of the upcoming conference in Malta in Sept. 2008)and the published articles in the International Scope Review testify to what I am saying. Do not delete this article. Tiziouzou15 ( talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) {{ spa}} is missing a username and/or IP. reply
The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Cuban Brazilians is not a notable community in Brazil. The population is really small, the population contribution to Brazilian culture and history is nothing. This page is nothing more than an overexaggeration of Cuban Brazilians. There is hardly any Cuban Brazilians in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotalbe community? Lehoiberri ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:HEY; delete preferences mitigated by the commendable research by User:Fabrictramp. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Two liner. Concerned has been expressed with a tag saying does not meet WP:NN guidelines. I concur, but move it here for more to see. Brusegadi ( talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus here is that he does not pass WP:BIO or any of its related policies/guidelines. Sher eth 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle ( talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
— 62.235.215.231 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Jessika Folkerts ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There is a misunderstanding, I am the same user, voted only once, am responding to the arguments cited above. I am no expert at using this system. Let's stay by the facts, any arguments? And Nsk92, your expression isn't very encyclopedic. Jessika Folkerts
OK, feel free to reformulate the titles of my interventions (I also see that one user expresses a vote at the end of his/her message). But what's about the content? Jessika Folkerts —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as redirect for now. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Page does not assert notability; google turns up 181 hits (or 22, for some reason the numbers drop off on the second and third results pages). Most google results are mirrors of wikipedia. Page has been around for 2.5 years with minimal expansion or linking. ) WLU ( talk) 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.
WP is not a directory or TV listing. ukexpat ( talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was A7 by Sarah, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleted as an A7 company, no assertion of notability. Sarah 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert significance. Employing 150 people does not in itself imply notability, and there are no sources to back up that claim or even verify existance. I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Change to redirect to spider taxonomy. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Basically this is the same thing as a guide to eatable mushroom identification, which I'm sure there is no place for on Wikipedia. If anywhere it'd place on Wikibooks (with expansion). — Jan Hofmann ( talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [80], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fail WP:BIO.The article contains no sources and I was not able to find any reliable source coverage of the subject. The article also appears to make overstated claims, one example is the article claim that he is a "regular on the nationally syndicated radio program Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, appearing frequently as a guest and contributor." The wikipedia article on Coast to Coast AM has a section about guests which he is not mentioned, he is instead mentioned in a section about callers. BlueAzure ( talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, noting zero support to keep even after relisting. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
An author of question notability. The primary author is User:Ngarto and thus likely has a conflict of interest. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Last-minute addition of some weak sourcing does not resolve the issues brought up in this discussion. When this becomes more than just speculation (and would not violate WP:CRYSTAL an article would likely be appropriate. Sher eth 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Recreation of article recently speedily deleted under the same name. The problem is with the topic, not the content, and remains exactly the same.
This is not an article about a ".sport" TLD. That would be notable. This article is spam from one company, claiming to have a plan to possibly make a submission to ICANN for a .sport TLD. That is no more notable than a plan I might have myself to submit an application for a ".andy" TLD, I merely need to get round to doing the paperwork. At this stage of the process this is simply not notable, and no more than commercial spam on the behalf of a single organisation. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Anyone not already familiar with it might do well to read WP:OSE Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge content into The Hills Have Eyes (series) and redirect. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 00:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Requested by 203.143.248.114. StaticGull Talk 16:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was article was speedily deleted. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album by non-notable performer ( William Girard) whose own article is nom'd for speedy deletion. There is no speedy criterion for albums, and in fact, speedy deletion is specifically prohibited for albums, even if the artist is nn. Corvus cornix talk 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 17:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparently non-notable author. All of the information seems to be a rework of the bio on her website, including the part about liking hot bubble baths. BradV 22:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is an apparently non-charting, non-notable individual song. No reliable secondary sources that establish notability have been provided, and the only rationale provided is that it has received airplay and is by two notable artists. That's not notability per WP:MUSIC's section on individual songs. Erechtheus ( talk) 22:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I haven't nominated an article for deletion in a bit, so bear with me here. I cannot find anything to substantiate this article in order to qualify its claim of "notability" I'm a huge football fan, but this completely unreferenced article about one play in one game, at the collegiate/non professional level no less, has me baffled as to its inclusion here as a separate article. I've done the appropriate google searches in earnest, and I'm only turning up Wikipedia mirrors. I recommend deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn. I didn't realize that Give a Little Love was just an international release of their 1986 album Heartland. I have cleaned up the page and moved it to Heartland (The Judds album); given that Heartland produced two Number Ones and was certified platinum, it is no doubt a notable album. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 14:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources exist for this album. It's not listed on All Music Guide or anywhere else that I can find.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. - auburnpilot talk 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This band doesn't even exist yet. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix talk 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article does meet the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 18:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources to establish notability or verifiability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nobody of Consequence ( talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Questionable notability, no references, possible self-promotion (created by Pprasadnair ( talk · contribs). Delete. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is verifiable and can meet the notability guidelines. Davewild ( talk) 18:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article has been tagged as unreferenced and original research for way too long! The closest thing to a reference is the connection to the movie Mean Girls but the book in that isn't even called a "Slam book" but apparently a "burn book". I can't find any encyclopedic sources for this subject. As it stands there is no verifiability. It may be that these books do exist but without references we have to assume that the analysis is pure original research. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, since it's been stubbed.. - Philippe 19:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Confused, no-context essay about an organisation or something else involved with wrestling. Its "references" defy comprehension. Even if this turns out to exist and be notable, it still fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Sandstein 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software article full of images which should also probably be deleted. Wackymacs ( talk ~ edits) 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This group fails WP:MUSIC; judging by All Music Guide, they have released only one full-length album (She's Mature) on what seems to be a small indy label. But the talk page suggests that things are controversial here. B. Wolterding ( talk) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nom (non-admin close). BradV 13:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Primary school of dubious notability. The school's web page says it has an enrollment of 45 students and 30 part-time in the nursery. BradV 21:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Change to redirect. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline OnlyinTheatresThisChristmas ( talk) 20:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete; no prejudice against recreation. - Philippe 19:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be provided to show that filming has begun. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 20:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Obvious nonsense.- Wafulz ( talk) 19:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Likely hoax. No references of any kind, no relevant Google hits at all. Looks like something someone made up. - Realkyhick ( Talk to me) 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was nomination withdrawn -- Roleplayer ( talk) 20:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Reason for the contest was "got an outstanding in Ofsted". I don't see why a primary school article containing nothing other than the name of the school and where it is should be kept just because it got an "outstanding" in its Ofsted report. Roleplayer ( talk) 19:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
500 copy compilation album featuring minor bands, released by a redlink record label. No reliable sources cited. Prod was removed with the comment "deprod please take to afd for consences please". J Milburn ( talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. If someone has actual information about the guy, feel free to recreate the article with some assertion of notability. - Wafulz ( talk) 19:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. This article is only one sentence, and that sentence asserts no notability. Ani Mate 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Ani Mate 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously speedied, I've decided to give this one a chance at AFD, just in case... A band article with no independant sourcing, and IMHO no real indication given of notability. TexasAndroid ( talk) 18:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to KEEP. - Philippe 19:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I WP:PRODded this article about a Mardi Gras crew for lack of notability. The PROD was contested with comment: "all MG crews are probably N." I disagree. As it stands, this is a local club with 300 members. Many such clubs exist (even when restricting to Mardi Gras, Carnival, Fastnacht etc. groups) and they would certainly not automatically pass WP:ORG, in the absence of some truly convincing secondary sources. However, I found only some mentioning in the local press, and directory-style announcements. B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, nomination has been withdrawn. Davewild ( talk) 19:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I am withdrawing my nomination for deletion of this article. I stand by my reasoning of
WP:V and
WP:RS deficiencies but it seems pretty clear that my interpretation of those two policies, especially the latter, is quite different than that of the more active editors in this area of expertise.
SWik78 (
talk •
contribs) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This song from
Mariah Carey's album
E=MC² is claimed to be the next single. The article lacks
verification through
reliable sources that it will, in fact, be released as a single. Although it was performed at a concert in Japan, please notice previous claims of upcoming singles from that album based on such incomplete information:
[9],
[10] and others.
SWik78 (
talk •
contribs) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
*Keep - Isn't
This and
That enough proof?? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
J.s.a.s. (
talk •
contribs) 18:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
*I get your point, but u can see her shooting the video....if thats not enough proof, i dont know what is....
J.s.a.s. (
talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 18:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely in-universe; essentially a guide to finding Easter eggs, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not for. I'm sure eeggs.com or some other wiki will gladly take such a list though. Wafulz ( talk) 18:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 21:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a producer who has produced 1 million songs (an unsourced statement of course). Gives 5 references but none are articles with non-trivial coverage about this guy, per WP:MUSIC... most are just track listings. We need better sources, otherwise the article should be deleted. Rividian ( talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Philippe 19:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a non notable game. Megata Sanshiro ( talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
It isn't notable enough to have an article as it's just a mixtape Shadyaftrmathgunit ( talk) 17:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability per BAND. The band is playing the Warped Tour, but there are at least 85 bands on the official list, so I don't feel that it is a strong enough assertion of notability, being that they are not a headliner. Being on Warped is not an automatic N, either, as quite a few bands on the comps (since 1998) have no articles, and the total band list is much larger than the comp album list. This band has opened for artists, which is no big deal for a band - local bands open shows all the time, and I don't know that the headliner has anything to do with that process as opposed to the venue booker. Most tellingly, all their listed shows are Denver-area, which is where they are from, meaning that they are a local band that has not toured outside of their city. Prod was removed by a Denver-area IP who has never edited anything save that article, which means there may be a COI issue here as well. MSJapan ( talk) 17:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both - Nabla ( talk) 18:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
nn high school band of a current indie musician (Anthony Green). The article freely admits the band went nowhere, and the notability policy states that notability is not inherited - Green is notable as part of and because of his band Circa Survive (and that's questionable, IMO, but not up for debate here), not as a solo artist past or present. Unsourced article, prod removed on this and the album by an IP as its only two edits. MSJapan ( talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the album article as an NN album of a NN band.
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable film, no sources listed. TN‑ X- Man 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, Tru Thoughts overhwlmingly, bands kept owing lack of discussion, with a humble suggestion that AfDs aren't fit for more than 2 or 3 closely linked topics at a time. Gwen Gale ( talk) 23:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't seem to be a notable label; sources given are primary or Discogs, not reliable.
Also nominating related musicians and albums::
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was previously speedy deleted under the name Adam seth nelson. The subject of the article is an actor turned public relations person. The article is long on name dropping and short on references. A search for reliable sources turns up nothing to substantiate notability. The only Google News result on a search for "Adam Seth Nelson" in quotesis a wedding announcement. Whpq ( talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A browser-based cricket management game with less than 10,000 members and minimal to no reliable sources; of the three cited references, one is a blog, one is a dead link, and the last is a one-paragraph mention on a specialty sports management game website. I see nothing here that helps this pass WP:WEB other than its connection to Hattrick - and if that's the notability, perhaps this should be merged there instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Possibly the most petty deletion I've ever seen on Wikipedia. And that's actually saying something, because I've seen some petty crap in my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.65.222 ( talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete - Nabla ( talk) 18:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A clearcut case of WP:ONEEVENT - a Palestinian deported from Canada as a security risk. Clarityfiend ( talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close as redirect. The article is borderline A1/A3 material as a one-liner with no context or information, but given the depth of discussion at the main page a redirect is just as useful as deletion. Sher eth 17:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Purely speculation at this stage, and the article doesn't even mention that. There is a Goonies 2 video game, that was supposed to be a sequel to the film which already exists The_Goonies_II Ged UK ( talk) 15:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, owing to no hint of consensus, but an editorial merge may be helpful. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article, as written, reads like an advertisement for the product; I consider it unlikely to be salvageable. The subject of the article is a niche market tool for clinical radiation dosimetry. (Note that the article describes in detail how to obtain insurance reimbursement for the product, but offers scant comment on the device's operatation—even mention of the type of dosimeter employed is omitted.) While our dosimetry article could use expansion, per WP:NOTCATALOG there is no need for Wikipedia to be a catalog of dosimetry products and services.
The article was created by User:Smg2008, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been the creation of this article and links to it from high traffic articles like breast cancer and prostate cancer (see Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75). This article was originally PRODded on 5 July; the PROD tag was removed today by the logged-out original author, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. (In case of any ambiguity, I'll note for the closing admin that my not-vote is to delete this not-article.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep - well researched arguments of notability - Peripitus (Talk) 07:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:MUSIC because the artist does not have any charting music, and the indie label upon which notability might rest relies on her and only two other artists for its notability (they cannot support each other for notability!) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale ( talk) 00:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software ju66l3r ( talk) 15:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 19:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable software ju66l3r ( talk) 15:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 17:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Company is probably notable but this seems highly promotional. Sources are numerous but selfpublished or press releases. Editor may have COI. Triwbe ( talk) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and feed to the sandworms, noting nonetheless that cruft is indeed a meaningless word in AfDs. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Crufty topic with no independent sources and no evidence of notability. Gatoclass ( talk) 14:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of Rescue Me characters. - Philippe 19:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
In-univese biography of a fictional character. This topic is completely OR and unreferenced, and does not establish the notability of the character. Removing the OR material leaves us with no content for the article, so I'm listing it for deletion. Mikeblas ( talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete as a hoax. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a hoax. Neither Hamarkameratene's squad listings nor the unofficial list of Norwegian international players mention him. Although the article links to the website of a guy named Tore Rønningen, no information can be found anywhere on his football career. 96T ( talk) 13:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Random neologism. This is an encyclopedia, not wikiquote or wiktionary (not that it would be appropriate there either). ZimZalaBim talk 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The coverage is trivial, and there's nothing to indicate this this movement is substantial, substantive, or encyclopedic. - Philippe 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no reliable sources that such a movement even exists other than a few Yahoo groups and an essay by someone described as a satirist; notability is not shown and reliable sources do not seem to exist. Large portions of the article are clear original research and essay ( WP:SOAP) Article should redirect to List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_States, if anything. Stlemur ( talk) 09:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Here's a couple of sources that seem credable:
Iveri R. ( talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)— Iveri R. ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Ah ha! I was about to concede my position. But sources found.
Basically, the committee set up in 2005 called "Move On California" to explore California secession got the most press coverage (it appears to have since disbanded) and otherwise secession reflects a popular cultural fantasy, often satirical, yet genuine sentiment none the less. The article does need to be rewritten to reflect to real scope of the "movement" and its cultural and political context- highest affinity following conservative Republican success in the 2002 and 2004 national elections. -- David Barba ( talk) 00:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Quoting Notability guidelines: "News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services."
The California Aggie, Solan.com, and CNSNews.com are independent of the "movement" and associated groups/individuals in question. The other sources reflect opinions, notable to the sentiment of California secession under discussion (Patt Morrison is not a nobody in California public discourse). Your point about sources: The blogs linked are not the sources- they are reproductions of the articles actually published in reputable sources- LA Times, Daily Trojan ect. It is otherwise difficult to acquire the entire texts from archive for demonstration purposes- to prove what they actually said. If you can help in this regard it would be appreciated. The blogs are not being cited, the newspapers are. Again you are subjectively characterizing this coverage as trivial- your opinion, not the guidelines. Please direct your criticism to rewriting the article.-- David Barba ( talk) 21:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
News items are generally considered notable (meriting an independent article) if they meet any of the following criteria:
1. The subject of the news item has become the subject of secondary documentation or analysis independent of news services. This includes being the subject of books, documentaries or non-trivial academic study (i.e. excluding non-scientific surveys), or incorporation in an important public debate.
2. The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way. This includes new laws being passed, novel interpretations of existing law, first tests of new law, notable "first of its kind" achievements, new or increased safety legislation, causing a notable change in societal behaviour or norms, etc. (Predictions that it will set a precedent, however, are inappropriate attempts to predict the future).
(1) is clearly met by the sources provided. You are characterizing these sources, from reputed outlets, as "insubstantial, unreliable", selectively judging sources based on personal assessment of content rather than notability.-- David Barba ( talk) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment Note, also WP:UNDUE, which is where we started and which entirely sums things up for me, quote:
Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
To closing admin, note also the vote stacking above. Debate 木 00:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Stlemur, the editorial articles included in that list (I believe only the California Aggiee and CNSNews.com are strict news reports) constitute public debate (that's what editorials are), apart of the historical record- even if you and I may find some silly. Some additional sources "How to Secede From Jesusland, Without Really Fighting" SF Weekly, "Political groups want California to secede Union" Daily Titan, "Free California: is independence the answer? " by Robert Nanninga, "Group Explores California Secession" by Jeff Morrissette. But to further assure you there is the documentary A State of Mine (2008) featuring the Move On California group.
Debate, your point is mute in this debate (about deletion) but refers us to another discussion- one I totally agree with having- as to whether and how this article ought to be merged with another more appropriate main article- made into a "ancillary article". And about prominent adherents- Jeff Morrissette founded the since disbanded group Move On California and the current head of the Californians for Independence is Kyle Ellis, attendant to the 2007 Chattanooga 2nd Secessionist Convention put on by the Middlebury Institute wiki: Middlebury Institute. I also hope the large number of texts by different authors shows that this sentiment is/was more popular than a few crackpots. For future reference altering an article or merging it with another in order to better conform with Wikipedia standards is always preferred as opposed to ought right removal of material, apart of operating in good faith of which making false accusations of vote stacking is not. The democratic experiment of Wikipedia is about maintaining an open mind and interest in the unfamiliar.-- David Barba ( talk) 04:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Murge in to Califonia or even Atzlan if it's Mexican by nature.-- 86.29.253.81 ( talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The Front Page 2 -- Taboo Tongue ( talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 17:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wording reads like a public relations puff piece and primarily deals with a companies products and marketing, not a bibliography. The cut-and-pasting of the web page [27] that until recently appeared in the article has been deleted.
The result was speedy redirected for now seems best. The full article remains available in history but in its present state this is superfluous. Suggest use of {{ under construction}} when resurrected to avoid further crossed wires. Non-admin closure. -- Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article is an exact copy of Indian National Army's controversy section. Since the original article is quite good and does not require to be broken in subpages this article can be deleted. gppande «talk» 12:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.-- Kubigula ( talk) 03:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Future TV channel with absolutely no assertion of notability or any references whatsoever. A google search brings back far too few hits to be notable. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Roleplayer ( talk) 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If notability is established at a later date, it can be recreated. - Philippe 20:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. A google search brought back 4 hits, too few for this to be at all notable. In contesting the PROD I was informed that I had got the name wrong and that I should have searched on the original name, for which I got 28 hits. Still not enough, imo. Roleplayer ( talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 20:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Is a timeline revealing a plot for a series, is most fancruft and serves little encyclopedic value to wikipedia Angel Emfrbl ( talk) 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep owing to no consensus. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has no sources independent of the site itself, and fails the specific criteria laid out at WP:WEB. Seraphim♥ Whipp 11:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete this article. This article contains pure speculation with no references to back up those rumors. While it is appropriate to post information that may or may not happen with respect to a future album, there must be some reference to the origin of such rumors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRoman1976 ( talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Since they may have a lot of material published under a by-line on the web, the notability of professional writers and journalists can be tricky to understand. Most of the sources cited by this article are things written by Mr Biado himself, which does not confer him with wide notability through independent coverage by reliable sources which have published pieces in which he is the subject. There has also been odd, steady vandalism. A Philippines IP editor has tagged it as spam and as a joke, hinting something here is likely amiss. The article even quotes his Friendster profile. What's that about? Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Anthony Appleyard as obvious advertising. Non-admin closure. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 17:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:SPAM, reads like an advertisement, no sources. Renee ( talk) 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. - Philippe 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely unverifiable. If this character does really exist, I'm sure he's been very careful to keep out of any reliable sources that we can get access to. The OCNUS reference is really just a blog, and it quotes the News of the World which is more famous for pics of topless girls than actual news. Igor would make a cool web comic character though ;-) — FIRE! in a crowded theatre... 23:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I was unable to find any sources that defined this phrase or make it WP:NOTABLE. This article is almost a WP:DICTDEF, an "interconnect agreement" is an agreement to interconnect two networks. It has been a stub since it was created in 2005. Before I proposed the speedy-delete, I tried to think of how to expand this and couldn't think of anything, nor could I think of a good target to redirect. I checked for similar articles to see what I could expand this stub with, but couldn't find similarly used phrases such as "sales agreement", "purchasing agreement", "marketing agreement", "property agreement". WP:SIZE says that if an article stays this small for more than a few months, you should think about merging or something. Wrs1864 ( talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable sailing boat Thetrick ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Shōjo. Sandstein 22:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't see any good reason for this article to be in Wikipedia. It is all about descriptions on the Japanese term for 'virgin' unlike Shōjo. Appletrees ( talk) 05:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sources, we gotta have sources.. - Philippe 20:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not only no google hits for title, but frgments of the first line and one middle line get nothing. Nothing even remotely similar in The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited from numerous manuscripts by the Rev. Walter W. Skeat (2nd ed.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1899). 7 vols., or the newer EChaucer at the University of Maine. Originally copied from an anon creation in 2005 at Simple Wikipedia. T L Miles ( talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per " Wikipedia:MUSIC#Songs" and WP:OR. It wouldn't be acceptable even on the album Cheers since there are no references to back up all of this. Do U(knome)? yes...| or no · 02:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, can't use prod tag because an admin removed it (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 15:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jamie ☆ S93 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wholly redundant to Category:Emo musical groups (both sort alphabetically), which is what List of emo bands and List of emo groups redirects to. Sceptre ( talk) 11:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep No valid reason for deletion stated according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, bad faith nomination by the same editor who nominated it just two months ago where it was explained quite clearly that categories and lists are not exclusive. There is no valid reason to nominate the same article again. According to guidelines, "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap". The list should be used to improve the category, as suggested in guidelines, as the category contains poorly sourced articles. So i suggest this is closed and sanctions brought against the nominator if this and the disruption of the article continues. --neon white talk 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete both. Sandstein 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Probable hoax, there were no baronets in the 13th century. References do not check out, for example, this is all thepeerage.com has to say on people named Glaister. Also nominating Glaister family as the only thing apparently notable is the supposed barony/baronetcy. Jonathan Oldenbuck ( talk) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Essay / original research / how to guide / fork of existing articles. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 10:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No viable assertion of notability for this book. As for saying it "inspired the 'Not happy John!' campaign, I suspect it is more likely to have been the other way around. I'm am dubious over that claim and would need to see some evidence. Moondyne 09:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
PROD contested because "experience shows that deletion of high schools will certainly be contested, so prod is inappropriate". Non-notable high school. Fails WP:SCHOOLS. Wolfer68 ( talk) 08:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article does not go beyond plot summary, violating WP:NOT#PLOT; plus, the topic seems to fail inclusion guidelines ( WP:BK). The only point it WP:BK#Criteria it might meet is #1; but for that, sources are missing. PROD was contested. B. Wolterding ( talk) 08:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 22:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is based on a self-published book. Much of it is WP:OR, anything that isn't should be at Alfred Webre Doug Weller ( talk) 07:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non notable band, prod removed because "has references that show notability". Only reference that works is for an announcement of a gig in a major newspaper, trivial coverage. Duffbeerforme ( talk) 06:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. - Philippe 20:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article has nothing other then an infobox with an image and some information which isn't sourced and fails to state anything that would make this school notable.
Bidgee (
talk) 06:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep - The subject is notable enough. There is no consensus to delete it. I note that the AfD was made by an inexperienced user, but the article should be judged on its merit regardless of who nominated it for deletion. - Richard Cavell ( talk) 08:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, clearly meets the notability guidelines. Since the AfD started more sources have been added, though BLP concerns mean any controversial content will need to be extremely well sourced. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
An article on a living person has sat since February 2006 without any reliable third party sources. Given her highly controversial opinions, that are argueabley pseudoscience, it's essential an article like this have substantial third party sourcing. Otherwise, it can only alternate between a hatchet job or a promo piece. -- Rob ( talk) 05:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to connected sum; merge as required from the history. Sandstein 22:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Other editors and I discussed the problems with this article long ago, but none of us got around to AFD'ing it the first time. In summary, 1) the term "anti-knot" appears to be a neologism, not used in any of the references, and I couldn't find a suitable reference using Google Scholar. 2) the content appears to be partly bogus, partly vague/speculative. The first proof assumes what it is trying to prove. The second uses a magical "knot energy" that does exactly what is needed. It's fair to say that the property needed of this knot energy is nontrivial and most likely an open problem. The "proof" given seems to be OR synthesized from the three references. 3) the purpose of this page is to explain that "anti-knots" in fact do not exist. This is in fact a well-known basic result (as explained in knot sum), so there isn't anything more to be said about the topic. C S ( talk) 11:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage in reliable sources. All I'm finding are lyrics and forums and rumors.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 03:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per the sources y'all have found.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells•
Otter chirps) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was keep, following an ongoing lack of consensus, which may be tilting towards keep. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Relisting per DRV: AFD 2 nom: This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a regurgitation of the plot of the various Bionicle stories from the novel and video game articles. As such, it is repetitive of that content with no out of universe information and should be deleted. MBisanz talk 03:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Orangemike per CSD G4 as recreation of deleted material. WilliamH ( talk) 19:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, advertising, re-creation of deleted content. Probably speedy anyway. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom, early consensus that a statement of great inherited wealth alone is both an assertion of importance under CSD and if this has been reported in reliable sources, is notable. I suggest the content could be helpfully merged into Hetty Green but this should be dependent on editor consensus. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleted as CSD A7, in DRV some editors may have felt the text's mention of wealth was an assertion of significance or importance. Fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale ( talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Merging is left as an editorial decision.. Pascal.Tesson ( talk) 23:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable game which I've played the hell out of in my life. Only sources are a stubby All Game Guide review and a primary source. No other third party reviews or sources found. Has been tagged for merging with Storm Impact for ages, but nothing's come of the merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable children's song. No chance of passing
WP:MUSIC ;). Google search reveals that the song exists, but no one has ever thought to write about it before. --
Mark
Chovain 21:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete, given the only keep comments came from SPA accounts with very limited contribution histories. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced biographical article. I have searched for sources about this person but I have been unable to find any connection between the person's name and the foundation he reportedly founded. I previously userfied this article because it was created by User:Hsbrown00 and the subject's initials would make him H. S. Brown. As it turns out, User:Hsbrown00 claims not to be the subject, asked that this article stop being deleted (two other admins have each deleted it once), and claimed that there are sources. So I am taking this to WP:AFD now for other editors' viewpoints. Please note that the User:Hsbrown00 page has not been edited since it was userfied; thus, it is not certain that the article is a conflict of interest/autobiography. Regardless, though, it looks appropriate for deletion per WP:BIO due to lack of verification and sources. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article should be kept. I have searched for sources about this person and have been able to locate a connection between the person and the foundation on www.temple.edu, the person and Gloria Brown within the Philadelphia Dailynews database in an article published on March 20, 1998, the person and Marc Mezvinsky in a diagram page in a pdf file posted by Goldman Sachs. Although the article lacks the neccessary verification and extensive references, the person and entry seems creditable and approriate. I can update some of the references with the information I have discovered and edit the entry this evening. User:Jellystomach —Preceding comment was added at 20:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — Jellystomach ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The AFD should be deleted. The article just needs to be updated with resources and external sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplefeinstein ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) — Maplefeinstein ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Keep The article needs to be updated with references but the article itself does make claim to notability of the subject. --Maplefeinstein —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maplefeinstein ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was MERCY KILLING this AFD. I suggest pursuing a rename and a rewrite, since it's very, very clear that there's no consensus to delete. (This deletion closing brought to you by the Judeoislamochristiathebuddhist Cabal, dominating the Earth for somewhere between 4001 and 4.54 billion years.) - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 22:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Posting on behalf of another user as follows: 1)Article fails to deliver the political neutrality championed by wikipedia. That in itself should be more than enough reason to delete. 2) It is politically biased. Article is thoroughly sourced, but article is overly-dependent on biased sources (like Uri Avnery). Article fails to deliver the balance necessary to be hosted on wikipedia. 3)The article has been in clean up limbo for more than a year, but nobody has made any real attempt to do a write-up. 4)The whole concept of an Apartheid regime in Israel is flawed. The Arab minority in Israel are full citizens with voting rights and representation in the government. In the apartheid regime in SA, blacks could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they are the overwhelming majority of the population. The article has no room for this fact. 5)Segregation is debatable, but Allegations of an Apartheid is far too sensational. 6)Unfair voice. There is no "proponent" section. The article is one big slant and has no balance. I cannot emphasize this more. 7) Some of the original authors have been banned or disciplined for wikipedia violations, though I'm not sure how relevant that is. 8) The most recent nomination had a majority delete, though the consensus was none. Not sure how important that is, but thought I'd mention it. 9)All in all, I think it is a perfect candidate for deletion. I can't think of any other reason why it should stay other than the potential to be cleaned, which as far as I can tell won't happen any time soon. If I see some pursuit by other members to fix this article, I'll gladly drop my want to delete this article. thanks for the quick response. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 02:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment I agree with Frank. A renaming is a reasonable compromise (if this ends to keep). Wikifan12345 ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
*Rename or merge Merge or Keep only if renamed The analogy to
Reasons why Barack Obama shouldn't be president is apt. A title like
Criticisms of Israeli occupation or something would be NPOV, but putting the word "apartheid" in the article title itself is inflammatory. Regarding the concern that people will do a Wikipedia search for "Israel apartheid," just put in a redirect or something. --
Jaysweet (
talk) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
Those who use the analogy argue that...Several critics extend the analogy to include...Those who reject the analogy argue that...Addressing the ramifications of making this analogy 53 faculty members from Stanford University have stated: "The apartheid analogy is false and breeds conflict"; as for the analogy itself they conclude that...Some accept parts of the analogy...
The result was keep, but some more sources would be helpful. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Mixtape: Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment even Wired has run an article on this mixtape: http://blog.wired.com/music/2008/05/interview-rappe.html as did the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/26/AR2008052601752.html?hpid=topnews I think we've clearly passed the bar for notability... time to close this. ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Change to redirect. Tim Vickers ( talk) 21:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. Not notable as an individual artist, redirect to Deadly Venoms. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 13:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Unusual Close. This product was just announced; there's no relevance to WP:CRYSTAL here. Whether this article should be merged with iPhone is a different debate. As for why I'm speedily closing this (which I'll admit is highly unorthodox), I think it's very silly to have a massive AfD tag blighting an article that will soon be seeing a lot of eyes. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Speculation about a future product with no substantial facts, and no references. Notability not asserted. Roleplayer ( talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers ( talk) 22:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to locate any reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx (toccyx) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Not notable, not released to radio. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable single, currently only on YouTube Esanchez( Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
article is unsourced and notability has not been established. Appears to be a "walled garden" with Patrick Hunout and The Social Capital Foundation, all three unsourced and each attempting to prop up the others. Madagascar periwinkle ( talk) 01:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
no evidence of notability has been provided. The article was kept despite the lack of sources in 2006 hoping that expansion would provide sourcing and satisfiy notability requirements, however, this has not happened and the article should be looked at again and evidence of notability should be required. This article, together with Patrick Hunout and The International Scope Review appear to be a "walled garden" using each to support the other. Madagascar periwinkle ( talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
— 62.235.215.231 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
It's an established fact that there is a growing interest in the activities of The Social Capital Foundation and its ideals particularly among academics. I think that the arguments presented by some for its deletion are subjective and too biased to be taken seriously. TSCF is a scientifically sound institution with a serious agenda that aims to promote peoples' lives in their communities through their main asset: Social Capital. TSCF confernce themes (see the latest theme of the upcoming conference in Malta in Sept. 2008)and the published articles in the International Scope Review testify to what I am saying. Do not delete this article. Tiziouzou15 ( talk) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC) {{ spa}} is missing a username and/or IP. reply
The result was Delete. Not notable. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Cuban Brazilians is not a notable community in Brazil. The population is really small, the population contribution to Brazilian culture and history is nothing. This page is nothing more than an overexaggeration of Cuban Brazilians. There is hardly any Cuban Brazilians in Brazilian society. Why is there a page for an unnotalbe community? Lehoiberri ( talk) 01:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:HEY; delete preferences mitigated by the commendable research by User:Fabrictramp. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Two liner. Concerned has been expressed with a tag saying does not meet WP:NN guidelines. I concur, but move it here for more to see. Brusegadi ( talk) 01:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The consensus here is that he does not pass WP:BIO or any of its related policies/guidelines. Sher eth 17:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
there are no reliable third party sources, so notability has not been established in accordance with WP:BIO Madagascar periwinkle ( talk) 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
— 62.235.215.231 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Jessika Folkerts ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There is a misunderstanding, I am the same user, voted only once, am responding to the arguments cited above. I am no expert at using this system. Let's stay by the facts, any arguments? And Nsk92, your expression isn't very encyclopedic. Jessika Folkerts
OK, feel free to reformulate the titles of my interventions (I also see that one user expresses a vote at the end of his/her message). But what's about the content? Jessika Folkerts —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep as redirect for now. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Page does not assert notability; google turns up 181 hits (or 22, for some reason the numbers drop off on the second and third results pages). Most google results are mirrors of wikipedia. Page has been around for 2.5 years with minimal expansion or linking. ) WLU ( talk) 00:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete.
WP is not a directory or TV listing. ukexpat ( talk) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was A7 by Sarah, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Deleted as an A7 company, no assertion of notability. Sarah 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not assert significance. Employing 150 people does not in itself imply notability, and there are no sources to back up that claim or even verify existance. I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Change to redirect to spider taxonomy. Tim Vickers ( talk) 17:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Basically this is the same thing as a guide to eatable mushroom identification, which I'm sure there is no place for on Wikipedia. If anywhere it'd place on Wikibooks (with expansion). — Jan Hofmann ( talk) 00:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. John254 15:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [80], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fail WP:BIO.The article contains no sources and I was not able to find any reliable source coverage of the subject. The article also appears to make overstated claims, one example is the article claim that he is a "regular on the nationally syndicated radio program Coast to Coast AM with George Noory, appearing frequently as a guest and contributor." The wikipedia article on Coast to Coast AM has a section about guests which he is not mentioned, he is instead mentioned in a section about callers. BlueAzure ( talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, noting zero support to keep even after relisting. Gwen Gale ( talk) 22:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC) reply
An author of question notability. The primary author is User:Ngarto and thus likely has a conflict of interest. JoshuaZ ( talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Last-minute addition of some weak sourcing does not resolve the issues brought up in this discussion. When this becomes more than just speculation (and would not violate WP:CRYSTAL an article would likely be appropriate. Sher eth 17:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Recreation of article recently speedily deleted under the same name. The problem is with the topic, not the content, and remains exactly the same.
This is not an article about a ".sport" TLD. That would be notable. This article is spam from one company, claiming to have a plan to possibly make a submission to ICANN for a .sport TLD. That is no more notable than a plan I might have myself to submit an application for a ".andy" TLD, I merely need to get round to doing the paperwork. At this stage of the process this is simply not notable, and no more than commercial spam on the behalf of a single organisation. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Anyone not already familiar with it might do well to read WP:OSE Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply