The result was redirect back. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This individual failed to make it to the finals of American Idol, the reality show he is known for. Any notability obtained through sourcing is a staunch case of Recentism. How exactly is this individual notable? If he had a recording contract elsewhere, I might be able to see some notability, but I don't. I redirected it but that's been contested, hence me sending it here. Wizardman 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Redirect until he has a recording contract. This version can be kept in the history and restored once he becomes famous for getting a record deal. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic listcruft. Fails WP:N. We already have articles on most of these people, where their poll ranking is noted. We also put the information (available at DJ Magazine's site anyway) at DJ Magazine (where it's also excessive, but I'm not proposing that for deletion at present). I would also suggest the 2006&'07 lists get deleted, and any further such lists User:Lonelysoulq happens to create. Biruitorul ( talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable label, no third party sources, and no reviews. Delete Undeath ( talk) 23:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a ghostwriter, something of a puff piece. Third party references aren't what you'd call reliable or significant in coverage. I'm also guessing the article's creator has something of a conflict of interest. Many of the claims are unreferenced and as celebrities are loathe to admit to using a ghostwriter these claims seem unlikely to be verified. So here it is for your perusal and opinions. Polly ( Parrot) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: I am the primary author of this article. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still figuring out how the site works, including policy and guidelines. I have amended the article the best I can, including referencing, but would appreciate some advice on any further improvements that could be made. Due to the secrecy surrounding the business of ghostwriting, it is not known how many books credited to other 'authors' Grant has been involved with, but one of her known books is Escape Domestic Violence (Hodder, 2007). There are other ghostwriters listed at Wikipedia. If this article should be deleted then I request all other ghostwriter pages be deleted too, including Clifford Thurlow and Andrew Crofts. Helen Grant is not only a ghostwriter, but an author, journalist and the founder of H ezine as well. I believe this makes her a notable person, but if this doesn't fall under Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to make any alterations and improvements necessary to avoid deletion. Please advise! ( Vintagewriter) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE as repost. ... discospinster talk 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:Music. Unreleased music album due till May 2008. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:NOTE. A non-notable organization (Radio Station) for student group of a particular college ONLY and established on 14 March 2008 (less than 24 hours old). Information about this station can be added on the respective college article but in noway it deserves to have a standalone article. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non DeletionThere isnt even a Bodmin College Page and I have created a page twice before but lacked information, now I have it. There are only two college radios in Cornwall, the other one being Inferno Radio and in the near future we are expanding to a Community radio, making us on the level of Radio St Austell Bay who are deemed worthy of an article. This is a free wikipedia, not a communist dictatorship. Sotonfc4life —Preceding comment was added at 07:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. ... discospinster talk 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:ORG. I know it is very close to Speedy but still I preferred AfD to have a discussion among active Wikipedian. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
unsourced neologism - it was prod'd earlier but someone removed it because it was "in the urban dictionary" - not a source we put any stock in. Fredrick day ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that this subject is sufficiently notable. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non- notable one off episode of a TV Series Jpe ob 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment/Non Deletion I dont think this page should be deleted as all top gear spinoffs have a page so this one deserves it also. Sotonfc4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotonfc4life ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It shouldn't be deleted. Just expanded to meet the standards of a good article. Bearing in mind it was written the day after the event happened! LB22 (talk to me!) Email me! 13:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, for so so many reasons, notability being the biggest, POV/BLP/FORKing being the most troublesome. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No obvious claims to notability for this individual. Yellowrooftiles ( talk) 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a trivial publication with no clear notability. Yellowrooftiles ( talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Article does not meet notability guidelines. No additional reliable source coverage has been provided. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Short film not listed on IMDB; article created by user with same name as director; no assertion of notability. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
OPINIONS
DISCUSSION WITH PRIMARY EDITOR, ETC
How My Dad Killed Dracula
http://farm.imdb.com/media/rm2772734208/nm2684485
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1731421/bio
http://allocine.imdb.com/media/rm777752576/nm1731421?slideshow=1
http://sposca.pbwiki.com/Skye+Borgman
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043/bio
http://audience.withoutabox.com/films/hmdkd
Here are several links to information regarding HMDKD that I did not create. The IMDB credit is not the only verification that this film exists. Because of IMDB's rules my film needs to screen at a festival before a credit is given. That is happening soon. However, these links will show that the film truly does exist beyond my self promotion of it. All facts contained therein are true and verifiable. If you need more information I'm happy to provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysoleil ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
First off,
Hello.
I'm new to wikipedia and I'm learning as I go. I appreciate your fact checking and I want to do everything I can to veryify the films validity. I've provided several sources showing that this film is as notable as any other film. It will have a screening soon but why does screening at a festival constitute tangibility or actuality or notability? I have a copyright from the US copyright office for the film. If I scan that and put it online as a JPG will that help?
If your film meets any of these criteria it will be included and not contested. I apologize for pasting the guideline here, but I thought it was a good way to make sure it was read in this instance.-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the info. Since receiving this deletion status I've contacted Variety magazine. They are going to include a listing of my film in their upcoming production listings on Monday. I assume that will fall into the category of Publication of at least two non-trivial articles. I'm working on the second. That's the best I can do for now to satisfy your historically notable requirements. I can have those publications provided by mid next week. I would appreciate the information not being deleted until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.26.92 ( talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC#songs. Prod removed by author. This song has received no independant coverage in media or on music charts. Top google hits only include Disney, YouTube and AOLMusic type sites, showing the video or selling the album. The article for the album from which this song offers more than enough coverage. Wolfer68 ( talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There are only four names in this list that I did not see in the parent article: Christopher Beeny, Tony Capstick, Louis Emerick & Kriss Akabusi. Every other name appears in the article with context and sourcing. Merging those four names without either would not do any service to an article that has obviously been diligently constructed. Merging the list entirely would be redundant. Should the editors of that list choose to reformulate information on cast into list within their article they certainly may. They have more performers in their article on which to draw than this list does. They also have more than enough to create a category if they choose (though as Lugnuts points out, such a category might well be ill-received.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally created an article by this name intending to use it in the Last of the Summer Wine article but realized I couldn't use it so I speedied it. Someone since recreated it in an even more haphazard manner than I did. This list has the potential to become extremely long since the show has been on going on 29 series. It is messy and resembles an indiscriminate collection of information. Does not increase knowledge. Redfarmer ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Renaming can be done by editorial process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is up for GA review. My feeling is that it is a jokey business slang term. It is not notable and is a neologism. At best, it should appear in Wikidictionary. Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and improve. Consensus seems to have moved towards keeping and improving the article, and has been tagged as such. A merge can still be considered on the articles talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
English middle school with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:SCHOOL — BradV 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, non notable and highly technical list. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Made up game apparently. Full of nonsense as well. EJF ( talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Ach now, have you people been living in a cave this last 10 years? Its a good honest reliable article,no need to get yer knickers in a twist iver it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanna-kel ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no sourcing to show that this bomb rack is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Sounds like either a made-up term or its just non-notable. THE KC ( talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that this name is notable, or sources to indicate its purported origins. I would be surprised to learn that Native Americans had surnames prior to interaction with Europeans, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, without determination of whether or not the article should be retitled and retained or merged and redirected. The primary question here is whether or not the article should be deleted, and consensus there seems quite clearly that it should not. Even the nominator, towards the end, argues that the article should be kept and retitled. While in cases of clear consensus, AfDs may close as keep with a result of merge or redirect, debate as to whether or not this is appropriate here seems to be ongoing. The question of whether or not the article should be merged and redirected or if it should be rather retitled is more appropriately continued in article talk space by procedure set out at Help:Merge. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
There is already an article named 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) on the same topic(division). SMS Talk 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." I bet was added by a Pakistani editor, and the fact that it is not referenced should say something. All British units in India that did not return to British territory after Indian independence were of course disbanded. Do not delete.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A question my friend and I have had a disagreement over, which divisions were transferred to Pakistan on partition and of those still active; do they have their old formation signs from the British Indian Army, for instance 7th Div seems to have the golden arrow from before partition. Also I read that of the 1965 war divisions all except the armoured divs were from pre-partition.
Clearly the formation;s lineage is that of the old Indian Army division since it was actually the one transfered. Since the formation dates was also with the British Indian Army, it should be deleted and "7th Indian Army division" should link to 7th Infantry Divison (Pakistan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Moreover to take over the personnel and assets of the British Army division, the British Army had to disband the division under the Indian Army Act, 1911 and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1939 c. 17, which it was mandated to do by the force of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore the only link between the two units is insignia.
As I suggested before, the article needs to be moved to the correct title in accordance with the Naming convention (units) as 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom), and recategorised accordingly.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army
"the Army of India consisted of two separate entities: the Indian Army and the British Army in India. The former consisted of Indian Army regiments originating in India, while the latter were British Army regiments originating in the United Kingdom which were sent to India on a tour of duty"
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/8punjabreg.html
Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Sikhs, Rajputana Hindus (other than Rajputs, Jats and Mers) Punjabi Mussalmans; Muslims from Punjab.
Here another one the 10 Baluch Regiment
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/10baluchreg.html
Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Pathans, Baluchis and Brahuis 1946 Punjabi Mussalmans from the Punjab (less Ambala Civil Division) including Niazi and other Pathans from the Punjab. Hazarawalas of NWFP and Mussalmans of Jammu and Kashmir State and Gilgit Agency, Dogras from the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir State. From within the administrative borders of the NWFP of British India. NWFP states and Tribal Territory.
Dogras being Hindu.
And as for lineage The Rajput Regiment http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES//index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=105&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26
The Rajput Regiment is from the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) lineage. 31st Bengal Native Infantry, raised in 1778, later became 3 Rajput
And another one Garwhal Rifles In 1891, the two Gorkha Companies were separated and the remaining six Garhwali companies were re-designated as the 39th Garhwal Regiment of the Bengal Infantry.
The 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) has an obvious, clear linkage to the 7th Indian Infantry Division, and thus, along the lines of 4th Indian Division, all the information should be at one page, probably the present day formation, with redirects elsewhere. Buckshot06 ( talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(2) No law and no provision of any law made by the Legislature of either of the new Dominions shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of this or any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Legislature of each Dominion include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the Dominion.
(2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces- (a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but (b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.
12. (1) Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction or authority of His Majesty's Government United Kingdom, or of the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council or the any other United Kingdom authority, in relation to any of His Majesty's forces which may, on or after the appointed day, be in either of the new Dominions or else where in the territories which, before appointed day, were included in India, not being Indian forces.
(2) in its application in relation to His Majesty's forces, the Army Act shall have effect on or after the appointed day- (a) as if His Majesty's Indian forces were not included in the expressions "the forces" His Majesty's" and "the regular forces" and (b) subject to the further modifications specified in parts I and II of the third Schedule to this Act. (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and to any provision any law of the Legislature of the Dominion, concerned, all civil authorities in the new Dominion, and, subject as aforesaid and subject also to the provisions of the last preceding section, all service authorities in the new Dominions, shall, in those Dominion and in the other territories which were included in India before the appointed day, perform in relation to His Majesty's Military forces, not being Indian forces, the same functions as were, before the appointed day, performed by them or by the authorities corresponding to them, whether by virtue of the Army Act or otherwise, and the matters for which provision in to be made by order of the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act included facilitating of the withdrawal from the new Dominion and other territories aforesaid of His Majesty's military forces not being Indian forces.
I will quote a document by the former C-in-C of the Army, Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck who must be one of the best sources possible on the name of the Army:
[10]-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Tradition and lineage are separate concepts. Many different units may share traditions, but not have the same lineage. I doubt short of archival material I will find secondary sources. However I would have thought that the way this division name was written in its first CO's service record stood for something-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
And some more "myths" for our consumption regarding lineage. The lineage of the Punjab Regt of Pakistan from, the time of their rasing to 1957 when all the present Punjab Regiments were consolidated into one regiment (the 8th formed the new Baloch regt).
http://orbat.com/site/history/open1/pakistan_punjabregt.html 58.65.163.248 ( talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
As you can see the author display not only the present but the prior lineage all the way to the first one.
Oppose to merge into 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan). If the claim is that the division has liniage to The India Army of pre-1947, then the initial formation should be the title of the article, which was 7th Indian Infantry Division, and a section devoted to its renamed status. As I proposed, the name needs to be 7th (Indian) Infantry Division (India Army) to conform with the naming convention. Alternatively the nation-in-brackets can be (Britain). --
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣
01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep, per reasons mentioned above. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep , this very lengthy debate shows how important this article is . it is better to fix it and deletion isn't wise . Pearll's sun ( talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Below is a description of how unit diaries which were used for theatre and battle honours awards during the First World War were kept. The process was the same during the Second World War. I am not aware that copies were made for Indian and Pakistani Armies, so in fact no awards, unit or individual could be granted to post-1947 units based on pre-1947 records. Nor could unit records be used for unit history compilation after 1947.
"Unit Records: War Diaries A soldier's medal records normally only give his regiment or corps. To trace his actual unit, e.g. the battalion in an infantry regiment, the brigade and/or battery in the Royal
Artillery, the company in the Royal Engineers or Army Service Corps, you may need more information from family sources such as letters home, or his pay-book (AB 64) or discharge papers if these have survived in the family. Infantry battalions are normally included in the medal rolls in WO329 but not always on the medal index cards.
Each unit serving in a theatre of operations abroad was required to keep a daily War Diary on a special form, Army Form C 2118. These were normally kept by the unit's adjutant or another junior officer, although for smaller units they were kept by the commanding officer. They were maintained in duplicate, normally written in indelible pencil, and once a month one copy would be sent to the Adjutant-General's Office at the Base, Rouen. These latter copies have survived and are at Kew in class WO95. The other copies were retained by the unit, and some of these survive in regimental museums.
The stated purpose of keeping a War Diary was to compile a contemporaneous record from which, in due course, the history of the campaign could be written, and indeed the Official History was written with reference to these diaries (as well as other sources). For this reason, and also bearing in mind that it was often compiled late at night, sometimes after a full day's fighting, it contains little information on individual soldiers. The comings and goings of officers (including casualties) are usually recorded individually but it is rare indeed to find other ranks mentioned by name. A notable exception is for gallantry awards, as mentioned above. War Diaries normally begin on the first day of disembarkation so information on the unit's training and service in the UK is only given in rare cases.
The sequence in which WO95 is kept follows the "order of battle." This means that units and formations in France come first, then those in Italy, then those in Gallipoli, and so on through the remaining theatres of operations. Within each theatre, records of General Headquarters (GHQ) and attached units come first, then those of Armies and attached units (France only), then of Corps and attached units, then of Divisions. In the latter case, the divisional HQ diaries come first, then those of divisional troops (i.e. arms other than infantry), then those of each infantry brigade (HQ, four battalions, and usually a machine-gun company and a trench mortar battery). Records of Canadian, Australian, Indian and other overseas formations come after those of the corresponding British corps and divisions within the relevant theatre.
War Diaries of headquarters and units on the Lines of Communication (the rear area behind the fighting troops, as far back as the ports) are shown after those of the divisions in the relevant theatre. These are mainly hospitals and other medical units, the railway service, base depots and workshops, and the offices of the Base Commandants and staff at the ports.
Some War Diaries are incomplete, especially for the period of the German 1918 Spring offensives when some units were completely over-run in a matter of hours, and records of units attached to GHQ, Armies, Corps and the Lines of Communication may also be incomplete or even missing entirely.
British Regiments 1914-18 by Brig E A James (Samson Books, 1978) gives a brief summary of the locations in the UK in which each cavalry regiment and infantry battalion served, and the brigades and divisions to which they belonged thereafter. The movements and major actions in which each division served are listed in Order of Battle of Divisions by Major A F Becke, reprinted in the late 1980s by Sherwood Press, Nottingham (Parts 1 and 2A) and Ray Westlake Military Books of Newport, Gwent (Parts 2B, 3A and 3B). It is possible that your local library might have copies or could get them for you through the inter-library loan service.
Becke also gives details of which units comprised each division at various times, but it may be easier to get this information from the National Archives website by searching or browsing the index to class WO95. Alternatively, if you are already at Kew, the last few files in class WO95, numbers 5467 to 5500, contain detailed and indexed Orders of Battle for each of the theatres of operations, normally at intervals of about one month. A copy of the edition of November 1918 for France has also been published by the Imperial War Museum. These should enable you to trace the formations in which your ancestor fought at various times, which in turn will help to narrow down your search of the rest of the WO95 class index."-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Regimental affiliations are handled by the Light Dragoons Regimental Association Charitaible Trust. Contact Fenham Barracks, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4NP, Tel: 0191 2611046 ext 3140.
close this discussion as keep and if possible merge the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) to this article . Pearll's sun ( talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Firstly, I do not hate any army. I am simply opposed to bad history of them.
Secondly, if SoLando will dismiss my sources without once referring to them, is there a point to bringing sources?
Thirdly, although the lineage claim is same issue, for the purpose of this article the regimental systems do not apply because we are talking about a formation.
Lastly, as was pointed out above, finally, what I have been saying is that the India Army, and the Armies of the two Dominions that emerged from it were entirely different organisations. These organisations had entirely different structures, foundations in legislation, Orders of Battle, etc. Although thee two successor organisations chose to retain many accouterments and traditions of the former organisation from which it was derived, they could not be a continuity of each other.
It seems to me the AfD was politically motivated because Pakistan editors may find it hard to to see the 7th Indian Infantry division due to the word Indian in it because they choose to believe this is one and the same as the same numbered division in the current Army, but it is not.
The name 7th Indian Infantry Division is a historical name used in many sources. The only question as far as I'm concerned is what state it belonged to per naming conventions. Is it British because of the British Raj administration and the officers or is it Indian Army because of the actual name of the higher organisation? It seems to me the use of (Indian Army) would duplicate the word Indian in the name, and confuse with the Indian Army of the present day. I therefore would suggest (British Raj) as ts reflects both the political and legislative historiography of the formation.
As for "why do I suspect that those War Office records would not support your contentions either." - suspicion is all yours because you don't know. However, had you read the sources I referred to, you would be less suspicious.
I have not repeated myself. I ave sown through use of memoirs, bioraphies, official puublications, primary documents, and eyewitness reports that on August 15 1947 the India Army came to an end, politically, legislatively, organisationally, in terms of economic burden on the UK government, in terms of War Office record keeping, socially as a community for British officers, and as an ethnicly mixed force in India. For most historians these would be enough, but you demand operational HQ orders for formation disbandment although not being able to provide any record of transfer of lineage yourself from any source, or even explain how that would have worked despite Regulations too the contrary. -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I have redirected to America's Next Top Model; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This game does not appear to have ANY independent notability beyond its connection to the TV show. There is no independent and extensive coverage of this game in any sources, and thus there is no need for an article about this game. Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. Some counterarguments were given on the talk page, but they make no reference to policy or guideline and I see no independent coverage of this software in any reliable sources. The article was created by a ZHLT developer. Jfire ( talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Empire (magazine). Non-admin closure -- RoninBK T C 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced with no sufficient claims of notability. I speedied this, but was suggested I take this to AfD. I have since then become neutral on this. - Warthog Demon 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing indicating that this techie subject is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Future album from a producer with no other albums as a performer. We don't know how notable this album will be because it hasn't yet been released. Powers T 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Prodded, but removed by creator. Even if such a day did exist, there's no assertion of notability. - Warthog Demon 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject is a member of two notable bands. From prod: "Article does not assert or demonstrate subject's notability. It appears that the article is primarily about the bands the subject was in, not about the subject himself." Punkmorten ( talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as stated by zahnrad Thright ( talk) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete at best a dicdef or neologism; this concept is unsourced and the usage among archaeologists is neither widespread nor uniform Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed saying this was a high profile quitting in the Netherlands but I can't find any evidence among the false positives in the ghits or evidence of RS coverage to back up this claim. Without that, he appears to fail WP:BIO for entertainers. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn, nominator admits that this is WP:SNOW at work here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Interesting, but not notable. This is not a biography, this is ... um, I'm not sure WHAT it is. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. I'm the first to admit it when I may have been too hasty and I may have been in this case. I'll withdraw as some of the references indicate possible notability. Non-admin close. Redfarmer ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I normally wouldn't take an article to AfD this soon after creation, especially with an undercontruction tag, but this seems a clear cut case of non-notability. All sources are either user driven sites or connected to the person's college. No secondary source coverage. No news coverage. This would normally be speediable but I have a feeling it would be declined because of the tag. In any case, fails WP:BIO. Would recommend a WP:SNOW close on this. Redfarmer ( talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, fails WP:WEB. Khatru2 ( talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per consensus and improvements. The article needs to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri, a title currently protected against creation. I will contact the protecting admin about the proper relocation of the article. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Missouri"|View AfD]])
Procedural nom. Tagged for speedy A7, but has had some media coverage. The references provided don't seem to be enough to meet WP:N guidelines though. On a related note, Better Courts for Missouri (without quotes) was deleted and protected after these comments, but the content and contributor appear to be different. Marasmusine ( talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemarketman ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Deor, the St. Louis Post and the Kansas City Star are Missouri's largest newspapers. Both specifically mention the organization. Missourinet is the Missouri radio version of the Associated Press. News covered by Missourinet is syndicated throughout the state. Also, the St. Louis Post article credits reform advocates, including Better Courts for Missouri, with pushing the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court to change policy. Specifically, the Chief Justice committed to adding more openness to the judicial selection process after Better Courts and its supporters began advocating reform.
A Lexis search reveals several articles by Missouri's preeminent legal newspaper, Missouri Lawyers Weekly. A number of these articles -- including what appears to be a cover story from the last week -- specifically mention Better Courts for Missouri.
For instance, one discusses a recent debate sponsored by the Federalist Society between Missouri Bar leadership and Better Courts for Missouri leadership. A wiki search of the Federalist Society indicates Better Courts for Missouri must have a decent amount of notoriety to have been invited to the Federalist Society's forum. ^ Wiese, Kelly. Daily Record "Proposed changes to Missouri Plan gather steam at Capitol." 2008-12-03.
( 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— 69.29.78.196 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: Deor, wouldn't it increase the significance of BCfM if one of its co-founders were a former President of the Federalist Society? 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Of the sources listed by Freemarketman above, the last four don't even mention the organization. This is a valid point. But while it may be true that some of the sources don't mention BCfM specifically, they certainly mention its members (William Placke being the obvious example). It should also be also be noted that even if the sources mentioned above are not enough to satisfy WP:ORG, a simple lexus/google search should. I did some basic google searching a few hours ago and found a giant stack of sources (AP, Post-Dispatch, etc. most of which have already been mentioned by the above contributer) which, in my mind, should satiate the requirments. If this is still unable to prove the groups legitimacy and notability, I wish someone would enlighten me on what could. ( Grange1272 ( talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
"Placke and Jonathan Bunch, executive director of the newly formed “Better Courts” group, said the judges' retention elections virtually are meaningless, because no Supreme or appeals court judge ever has been removed from the bench." Watson, Bob. "Stith touts changes in judicial selection process". Jefferson City News Tribune. 06 Feb. 2008
"In Missouri, that would include groups called Better Courts for Missouri and the Adam Smith Foundation; legislators like Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County and state Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph; the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and sundry other outfits on the right who don't like the way the Missouri Non-Partisan Courts Plan operates." Horrigan, Kevin. "Stranger Than Fiction." ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 03 Feb 2008
"Opponents of Missouri's judicial selection process have formed a new group to push for change.The organization calling itself "Better Courts for Missouri" says it wants to make the selection of judges more open and accountable to Missourians. Supporters of the current judicial selection method say the new group simply would inject more money and politics into the courts." "Judicial selection opponents form group" Associated Press 30 Jan 2008.
"The Bar’s leadership is dominated by and beholden to trial lawyers, who often argue cases before the state’s judges, said Bill Placke, co-founder of Better Courts for Missouri, a judicial reform group. “There’s no good reason that plaintiff’s attorneys should be selecting the judges before whom they argue cases,” Placke said." "Missouri Plan gets scrutiny and support today" KC Star
And this is just a small sample of the largest newspapers in the state. If you'd like more, feel free to ask. ( Grange1272 ( talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: As 69.29.78.196 writes below, these are not trivial sources, nor was Better Courts mentioned "in passing". Each of these articles were written directly as a result of calls for reform in Missouri, and Better Courts was seen as the major advocacy group here. Again as 69.29.78.196 writes below, this group's calls for reform has led to three bills, an initiative petition, and an ongoing debate across the state. Shouldn't a group this influential have it's own wiki page? ( Grange1272 ( talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)) reply
Comment: I have reviewed the references on the Better Courts for Missouri wiki. The organization has been specifically mentioned in publications by the Kansas City Star, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missourinet, the Missouri Bar Association, the Jefferson City News Tribune (state capital's newspaper), among others. I respectfully suggest the extensive coverage the organization has received in a short period of time makes it notable. 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)— 69.29.78.196 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: :Redfarmer, the references may seem trivial to you, but as someone who follows Missouri politics I would like to point out that every one of those articles was generated as the result of the advocacy of Better Courts for Missouri. The organization's website explains that it exists to encourage reform of the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. Each of these articles is about that very topic. Wouldn't it make sense to have an encyclopedia entry for the main 501(c)(4) that is urging reform? 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: As for Better Courts for Missouri, it appears that Missourinet -- syndicated all over Missouri -- the Kansas City Business Journal and Missouri Lawyers Weekly have all done some sort of profile of the organization. These are linked on the main page. 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I would also point out that this entry has more references and sources than does the "Missouri Plan" entry, which is the subject of the ongoing debate in Missouri. 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Here are a few articles about the organization:
(1) Jefferson City News Tribune (2) City Business Journal (3) MissouriNet (4) Associated Press 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Sorry for this late entry, I've been without internet for the weekend, but I'd like to respond to some allegations that my account is some kind of SPA. Yes, I am a wiki-novice, but everyone starts somewhere, and I thought it would be fun to begin with a page on a group that has cause quite a stir at the capitol. Perhaps I should have waited until I was a more established user to start such a controversial page, but I was unaware it would be so controversial at the time. There's not much that I can add that hasn't already been stated by others on the board, but I would simply like to say that this group is notable (just ask anyone at the capitol. Tempers will flare.) ( Twooclockjazz ( talk) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)) reply
Comment If the article is kept, I expect it to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri without the incorrect quotation marks, which for some reason I could not do. Reywas92 Talk 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep The article has 13 references now, most of which are published news articles about the group. There's no reason to delete now other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also unprotect the version w/o quotes and rename. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Nothing in reliable sources to show notability. IMDB is not a reliable source. The one link in the article which looks promising turns out to be a dead link. No prejudice to re-creation with better sourcing. Black Kite 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced; a google search comes up with no reliable third party sources AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article "Max Sohl" DOES meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Mr. Sohl is an award winning director. His debut video "Dawson's 20 Load Weekend" received a total of 6 Bareback Video Awards in 2004 including Video of the Year. Mr. Sohl has been credited with discovering international porn star Dawson. A google search for Max Sohl shows that his videos are sold not only in the United States but also around the entire world including the UK, Australia, Germany, China and elsewhere. Mr. Sohl was at the center of a organized protest in 2005 which led to articles appearing in the gay press including The New York Blade [24]. His works have received rave reviews in multiple publications both online and in print including rad video, onguys, adultdvdtalk and many many others. mannet.com went so far as to create an entire Max Sohl page to feature reviews of his videos all in one place. Proposing this article for deletion was the work of an over zealous editor - if anything - as per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it should have been proposed that the article be improved. Cainebj ( talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local radio show/web content. Searches yield Technobabble. Prod contested without rationale. Jfire ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Useight ( talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't be confused by how this is worded, it's not a neologism - it's an advert for a non-notable webdesign company (tried to CSD it yesterday but other people like to generate work for the rest of us). Fredrick day ( talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Non Admin Close. Dusti talk to me 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
From the text, this mall has less than 10 stores open in a two story mall and is dying. It seems to have no assertion of notability and be more of a comparision between this mall and the more notable Warwick Mall. Does not appear to meet WP:N. Doesn't even have a website. Collectonian ( talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced article about nn voice actress, so nn we don't know where or when she was born, whether she's still alive, or anything close to material that one would expect in an encyclopedic biography. The article, with only tweaks has lain in this dismal state for over 2 years, without expansion or improvement, presumably because there is nothing more that could be said.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as a blatant copyright violation ( Criteria G12). -- Allen3 talk 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable - fails WP:N, no references - fails WP:V and WP:RS ukexpat ( talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Yannismarou ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely fictional wrestler. Editor has also added this false information to other articles Mshake3 ( talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Per all my reasons on the last AfD, the list is compiled in a manner that constitutes original research. In this case, being sourced is irrelevant. The word "fuck" is notable and the films themselves are also notable, which does not make this mere statistic notable. Note, this has nothing to do with censorship. The Dominator ( talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice to creation of a redirect. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, list of matches in a league season AR TYOM 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Rewritten and notable. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for Shooting Dogs. I suggest merging the article to Shooting Dogs since the only assert of notability in the article is his involvement with Shooting Dogs. Ozgod ( talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, which defaults to keep. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The only reference cited on this page is a travel book, hardly an authoritative source. The ethnic groups in Lampung according to the last census are in fact Javanese, Sundanese, Peminggir, Pepadun, Malay, Bantenese, Abung Bunga Mayang, Minangkabau, ... Caniago ( talk) 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. Article needs improvements, expansion and citations though if it is to survive a future deletion nomination. Tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The ethnic groups in South Sumatra, the location of Palembang are, according to the last census are in fact Malay, Javanese, Kerinci, Minangkabau, Banjarese, Sundanese, Buginese, Madurese, Betawi, Bantenese ... Caniago ( talk) 14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
actual notability unclear, perhaps buried in flowery and POV overtones; article states some connection to Wikipedia and JFK -- what??? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close, please sort this out through normal editing and a requested move if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Imaginary unexisting geographical renaming of scientifically researched Balti Steppe, no single authority-weigth reference for Balti Plain or Balti Plateau available, except a page with porn adds. Britannica calls it Balti Steppe, just as internal Moldavian and other external sources listed on the Balti steppe talk page, copied to created Bălţi Plain talk page [47] (including European Commission, etc...). Per previous discussion on the talk page, consensus was reached on the name Balti Steppe. This article may also meet criteria for speedy deletion. The template for the first nomination was deleted minutes after it was placed [48] Moldopodo ( talk) 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. And create redirect from this page title to Satyagraha. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I have redirected to Cloak and Dagger (comics); knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comic book mutant. I could not find any sources for it. Blast Ulna ( talk) 12:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This shows little to no notability for the record label. It was deleted in June 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oasis Entertainment. All the references here appear to be press releases, which cannot be used to established notability. The only two source that appears to be a non-press release is the Coffee Talk article, but that doesn't appear to proivde a lot of notability. Metros ( talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Metal-rod exercises has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. The material used in an attempt to assert notability is self published by the creator of the article. The primary contributor to this article has written a self-published book on the subject (which is the only source cited in the article) and runs the website http://www.metalrodexercises.com/. This is a clear conflict of interest and per Wikipedia policy, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable reliable sources. Searches for other reliable sources turn up few (if any) third-party published sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Quarte t 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. I am having a difficult time determining if and when material has been merged from this article into the parent. There is a note on the talk page of the article suggesting an editor placed material on the subject in the parent article in September of 2007. All edits to the parent article in that time range have been deleted, obscuring contribution history, but deleted edits suggest that the material was rewritten, not merged and there is no note of a merger from this article in the edit summaries of the parent article (deleted or otherwise). A note of merger on March 4th doesn't seem to have been accompanied by any transfer of material, and the note does indicate that the material is already there. I'm assuming at this point that "merge" has been used in this AfD more in the sense of duplicated substance, not duplicated text. :) If in spite of my efforts to comb through the history here, there has been substantial transfer of material, the redirect should be placed in Category:Redirects from merges by placing the template {{ R from merge}}. A null edit with a link to the destination article as set out at Help:Merge also needs to be made. Otherwise, redirect is sufficient, and it is within consensus that the redirect be protected if efforts are made to restore the article without sufficient sourcing to verify stand-alone notability. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not stated for this radio program. The article previously survived an AfD, with the strong suggestion (but no consensus) that it be merged into Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. The merge has been completed, but the article was recreated. I doubt that this article could ever contain more useful information than that in Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus, and is really only acting as advertising. I propose that we delete and redirect to Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus Papa November ( talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, no assertion of notability (fails WP:N and WP:CORP), no references other than the official website, (fails WP:V.) Ran a Google search, didn't find anything that would qualify as a non-trivial secondary source. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result was Keep, nomination has been withdrawn after a reference was produced showing the song has charted. This after both delete opinions had been made and appears that it would have addressed their concerns. Davewild ( talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
individual song fails WP:MUSIC, lacking notable cutural significance or appearance on charts - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
"for me, having a music video for a song makes the song notable, but since I found nothing charted for the band on Billboard"
Magnum valentino ( talk) 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Try the UK charts. It has a music video, and by your criteria is thus notable. Say someone saw the video but didn't know the title, if they checked this page it might shed some light on their situation. This page is just as valid as every other singles page. At least I'm contributing something, rather than scouring the internet looking for something to do, such as deleting things from Wikipedia, which benefits absolutely no-one, rather than the alternate which has potential benefits. reply
Magnum valentino (
talk)
21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)No no no no no, it is not my opinion, it did chart in the UK, it reached number 45/6. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!
reply
Magnum valentino ( talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)The following link shows the Chart positions of a few Sepultura singles Hopefully this will end this debate once anf for all, but I would also like to point out that this song is one of the band's most enduring songs and a classic metal staple of the 1990s. Please bear in mind that this is not a page for in indiviudal song, but rather an article about a genuine release, a CD and vinyl single which DID have a music video and DID chart, so those previous arguments to the contrary should be ignored. reply
http://www.rockdetector.com/discography,7880.sm?type=SinglesEPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum valentino ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Magnum valentino ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Thanks Chris. I'm removing the deletion template now seeing as previous conditions have been proved false. reply
Magnum valentino (
talk)
17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Stupidly I never thought to update the page with the link to the chart page! Will doing so remove the deletion page?
reply
Magnum valentino ( talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The following website also confirms this, though I couldn't find any links to the latest book. reply
http://www.polyhex.com/music/chartruns/chartruns.php
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The title, Andok's Lechon, follows under wiki notability guidelines for deletion. Andok's Lechon is a single item on the menu of this fast-food chain. It is a pork product. Not only does a single menu item fail the notability criteria, but nothing in the article bothers to describe it. The majority of the content is around random bits of info about the parent company with a few references to poultry and beverage items. It includes a subsidiary company reference and an item on its menu also. Again, forking off onto a new topic.
This article had already once been nominated for speedy deletion for advertisement although the tag was removed without any explanation and again, the neutral point of view has been lost with the inclusion of emotional terms like "most popular...in the Philippines", "dominance", "very popular", and "sizzling". While these are normally minor edits, it does prove a history of reading like an advertisement.
Over all, this article has nothing to do with its own title. It also is too forked to be simply renamed and categorized as a stub. It titles to a pork product but the only food references included are for chicken and vegetable dishes. Perhaps the writers are having language translations problems, which would explain this: "Andok's Litson is one of the most popular roasted chicken products in the Philippines." That is not the name of a product they sell, it is the name of the company. Another irony is that Litson it also another Tagalog word for suckling pig, not chicken, (roasted or otherwise).
I would have no objection to separating this into an article about the company, provided it has verifiable sources and remained on topic with a NPOV. As it stands, it's simply a jumble of randomness. Lightertack ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Maud Molko has worked once for Marc Jacobs in 2004 but she has done nothing else since then and her notability is vastly questionable. Not working on anything significant for four years is a good indicator, let alone the infamous google test that reaches a mere 416 hits, which is clearly too low to be considered notable. Thiste ( talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. Google test shows 367 results. For perspective, there are about one thousand models in just parisian agencies. They probably all hit that kind of numbers on google. Now do we need an article for all of them? Thiste ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, fails the notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Radio sitcom broadcast by a small student-radio. The claim is that the show has a "cult following" but I found no source backing up that claim and in fact I haven't found any coverage besides this which in fact was written by the sitcom's main organizer. Much of the content is a plot summary of each episode but there is no critical commentary accompanying it. Pichpich ( talk) 12:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Fails WP:BAND. Non-notable album by a non-notable band that was previously deleted. No reliable secondary sources provided in the article. Nsevs • Talk 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Once proposed for deletion but tag removed by author. Company of questionable notability with an article written more like a brochure than an actual article. From the contributions of the author, there's a strong suspicion of conflict of interest. Pichpich ( talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no proof that the actress Laura Greenwood is to be involved in Hollyoaks
BlonddudeGoneDark (
talk •
contribs) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨
REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight
12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to David H. M. Brooks the correct spelling of the article name. The correct thing to do in the first place would have been just to move the article to the correct title instead of creating a new duplicate article. There was no need for this to come to AFD. Davewild ( talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This should be deleted because it was created as an accidental duplicate of David H.M.Brooks by the accidental addition of a space between the '.' and 'Brooks'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archnoid process ( talk • contribs) 2008/03/14 02:45:13
David H.M.Brooks has been moved to the more appropriate David H. M. Brooks. I'd redirect this article to the new name if this AfD weren't still going on. B.Wind ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close - listed in the wrong xFD name-space. Non-admin closure and will relist at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ELLIOT PRIOR. Yngvarr (c) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been created by a pupil that attends the same school as me, meant as a direct attack on me. I find this content extremely offensive and as it contributes nothing to Wikipedia as it is not factual, it should be deleted. Cyber bullying should not be allowed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmenonpie ( talk • contribs) 2008/03/13 13:51:15
The result was Keep. I wouldn't be sorry to see this article disappear, as it has wasted enough of my time recently (I have it watchlisted, and have reverted vandalism, deleted multiple attempts to insert unsourced material, and blocked a multitude of sockpuppets). Nevertheless, it is sourced - though many of those sources need fixing or removing - clearly meets WP:LIST and is equally clearly not an indiscriminate list. So it looks like I'll be fixing it for a while longer :) Black Kite 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT#LIST -- that page is simply a list. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. The reason it is a list is because that is what was agreed in a previous discussion when it was an article about hooligan firms. The content about the firms was moved to the article Football hooliganism and to keep that article manageable it was decided to make the Hooligan firms article into a list; something that appears all over wikipedia with all sorts of articles. (And yes I know that comparisons with what happens on other articles is not really relevant, however the fact remains that there are numerous football related lists. For instance, List of association football competitions, List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of football clubs in Latvia to name but three.) If of course you feel that it should be expanded from a list then that is what should happen rather than simply proposing it be deleted. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOT#DIR
WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
WP:DIRECTORY
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Wikipedia articles are not:A
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)
That's the policy I'm referring to. This list quailifies as such, and as such, consensus or not, will be deleted as policy over-rides consensus.
Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!!
17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:NOT#LIST, not to mention fails to assert notability and not referenced. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
per policy needs (and most likely will) be deleted per WP:NOT#LIST Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW, bad faith nomination. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Violation of Neutral Point of View Markmulligan ( talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep and tag for cleanup The article needs work, that much is true, but the nom is obviously a pointy one. Jtrainor ( talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to Zekki Pasha where the content has already been merged. Davewild ( talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Reason the page should be deleted
This page already exists under Zekki Pasha along with numerous references. This page has no references and is poorly written as to make the reader believe Zeki Pasha helped the Serbian's gain their independence. Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Konami_Code#Mentions_in_popular_culture (non-admin closure). SilkTork * YES! 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm just going to afd, skipping prod. Like most WP:TRIVIA sections, this is basically a lot of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. If anything, merge into the Konami Code article, but I don't see this needing it's own discrete article. I would not recommend neither merge nor redirect Yngvarr (c) 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This has been debated before, and the verdict was delete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_Konami_code_references_in_popular_culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.160.10 ( talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
— 202.71.45.45 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AtaruMoroboshi ( talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Merge verifiable items into Konami Code. References in popular culture seem to be a significant aspect of the topic, but isn't substantial enough for its own article. Bill ( talk| contribs) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Demo albums fail WP:MUSIC. Possibly CSD G4 (recreation), but I can't check against the previous version. B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod contested without improvement. Non notable local radio presenter, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 303 11:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Nick Dowling ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as patent nonsense. cab ( talk) 10:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, originally thought to be a joke/hoax entry authored by the party's leader, based on a MySpace profile listed in the article. The prod was subsequently removed, accompanied by a content addition stating the party is "currently in the process of formally registering with the Australian Electoral Commission". A check of the Commission's website shows that the party is not as yet recognized.
I found no online references for the party, except for MySpace and here. Listed ministers appear to be friends, relations or perhaps enemies; are celebrities (e.g. Tom Cruise, The Chasers) with no clear connection to the party; or are members of another political party, as with Pauline Hanson of the AEC-registered "Pauline's United Australia Party". It is true that humorous or spoof political candidates have a long and colorful history, some with their own WP entries (e.g. Sister Boom-Boom, Dick Tuck, Monarchy Party), but here reliable sources appear lacking. And while there is precedent for joke members of a group listed in a Wikipedia article (e.g. Rakeops), an AEC-registered political party requires 500 actual exclusive members. Regardless of how the content is framed in the article, failures of reliable sources, verifiability, notability, and the overall dubious nature of the party's claims make this article suitable for AfD recommendation. Michael Devore ( talk) 10:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be that controversial an influence, as I can't find any serious reference to this person online (it is a common name, however). Similarly, I can't find any proof of the claim to be the President of Delta Iota Kappa. There is one newspaper reference from a local paper provided, but I don't think that that is enough to attest to this person's notability (or notoriety). Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per notability and cyrstal ball concerns. Davewild ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This future tour is of one country only, by a former Spice Girl. It basically says she is touring to support her latest album, then goes on to list tour dates. I have listed this AfD under cat=O, since it is a corporate product, and I do not feel it is Wikipedia's job to advertize for millionaires. Also, it's not notable, has no sources, and is crystal ballery--tour dates get changed and cancelled all the time. AnteaterZot ( talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Demo albums generally fail the notability criteria ( WP:MUSIC#Albums).
Note: This nomination is for the demo album only; notability of the band may be a different issue. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 09:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable video game character. Yngvarr (c) 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (non-admin closure), page has been blanked and tagged for speedy deletion. Littleteddy ( roar!) 08:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)" reply
Blatant advertising. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete A7 bio. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Somebody confusing Wikipedia with MySpace. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a made up game Salavat ( talk) 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep but clean up, consensus is that the topic is notable and that the article can be improved. Davewild ( talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Now, don't get me wrong. This is a style of music. However, this article is abysmal. First of all, there is only one source that has any coverage of snap music, and even that is just a short paragraph in an article that doesn't really have anything to do with snap music.
The entire criticism section is awful. There is no mention of snap dancing in the section, or even in the article that is the source for some of the section.It starts off by saying that snap dancing has been criticized as "garbage" and provides nothing to back this up. The "snap dance" section is pretty bad too.
So, at the moment, there is no indication of notability. It's also riddled with irrelevant, POV, uncited ramblings. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per concensus. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of loosely associated topics. This list serves little purpose, especially since there is already a category page for Macintosh software, and this page does nothing more than list a number of them, which could be construed as saying that the listed programs are more important that other ones. If someone wants to search for Mac programs, there are better places than Wikipedia, as the article even states, but even the category page here would be more complete than this. Althepal ( talk) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. No other word for it. A kind of MySpace personal shrine. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was convert to disambig. This article will be deleted, and (disambiguation) will be moved to the unappended title. The new Highlights page's link to the hairstyle will be modified. If I miss anything, please let me know. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A better version of this article already exists at Hair highlighting. Maybe the information here should be merged? Lady Galaxy 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, sources found during the debate suggest some notability but some remain onconvinced that they meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a recreated version of a recently deleted page. By spelling the title in a different way (lowercase 's' in the last name) it comes back as new. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Let's see here... a real mess of an "article" created by a editor with a single purpose account, muddled format, generic (non-specific) "award citations", recreation of a deleted article. Did I leave anything significant out? Strong delete. No systematic bias here - notable Singaporeans have articles in Wikipedia: there are ways of demonstrating notability as Singapore has the greatest Web penetration in the world. B.Wind ( talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable band
Beeblbrox ( talk) 03:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable. I've looked and looked for something encyclopedic. nada. Kingturtle ( talk) 03:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Nothing to merge as all logos are already present in either Fox Broadcasting Company#Logos or Fox Sports (USA). Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is nothing but a gallery/repository for logos of Fox Broadcasting, which goes squarely against WP:NOT, and quite possibly again fair-use of logos on WP. Speedy delete was declined, so bringing here to Afd for discussion, and using this as a test Afd for these articles. Russavia ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webmistress, v-blogger and blogger. I ran into the article on a recent AfD for X Culture Magazine, a weblog she founded. The AfD resulted in no consensus, the Keep voters citing Bishai's resume, and it struck me to actually research it. I wound up filing a prod, which was removed without comment by an SBA created today. Beyond that ...
No doubt Ms. Bishai is a perfectly pleasant young woman, but despite what appears to be energetic self-promotion, the world just hasn't taken much notice of her. RGTraynor 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as irredeemable advertisement. Pegasus «C¦ T» 11:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Plain advertising for an event ("Miss Curves U.S.A.") that hasn't even started yet. Nothing to do with Wikipedia at all. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 03:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence found that the company exists. Does not meet the notability guidelines. Article claims notability so speedy not used. Gtstricky Talk or C 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO Veritas ( talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism / original research. Guerilla spam for the external link at the bottom. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete by User:Bradeos Graphon, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot. Possible COI. Also, the page's creater, and a sock, have been deleting the speedy deletion templates off of it. So I brought it here. Delete Undeath ( talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete ( Criteria A1) -- Allen3 talk 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
C:\>RIEN_ 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article constitutes original research by synthesis. It takes a relatively obscure phrase, used three times by Nicholas Kristof and once by Alex Kirby, and builds a framework that is not clearly supported by the underlying sources. As such, the article violates WP:NPOV and fails verifiability. It should be deleted because it doesn't meet these encyclopedic standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum. Very poorly sourced; most is from the primary source (the site itself) and the ones that aren't, still aren't sufficient. Also wary of it being web promotion . . . this was once temporarily speedied, but failed and followed by an influx of fresh accounts making promotional comments on the talk page. In the interests of full disclosure, any of my personal beliefs were not factors into nominating this. - Warthog Demon 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Duplication of a category is not a reason to delete; however consensus focuses on other issues as well. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
list of red links is more like it. Listcruft Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Clearly notable. Reso lute 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
24 sources, but no evidence this airline is in any way notable. It's out of business and seems to be just another commuter airline. Not encyclopedic in tone and not something anyone is going to look up Basegirlball ( talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, pointless fork which tramples all over WP:NOT, much better dealt with via a link to this page [60] which is already there. Black Kite 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Nothing more than a list of football (soccer) results between two rival teams, of non-encyclopaedic value and fails Wikipedia is not a list of statistics. A summary is already present in the article Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry. Qwghlm ( talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Not because its a German subject (I agree with the sentiments about sytemic bias), but because its a non-notable German subject, per reasoning given below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Although his band was popular, as an individual member of the band I believe this fails WP:MUSIC. — BradV 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Extensive precedent shows that additional notability is required. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
He is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, he has been on two seasons, but recent precedent shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion 0422 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? This is an encyclopedia, not a ton of Lord of the Rings crap. Give me a break! Basegirlball ( talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy. SNOW. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A list of notable funders!notable organization. Spammy. What, does every museum in NYC have an article here? Basegirlball ( talk) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable promotional crap. Basegirlball ( talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:IAR, nominator gave weak rationale and has a history of possibly disruptive AfDs (and I'm a bit wary of a user whose first edit is installing Twinkle). Notability is clearly asserted in article anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Spammy with zero evidence of notability. This is ridiculous Basegirlball ( talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Speedily kept - notability estabilished. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
What do you know? Another non-notable NYC gallery. They're a dime a dozen and enough with creating articles for all of them Basegirlball ( talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
NN local org, huge COI issues. Only news coverage is NYC based papers, heardly evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a NYC museum directory. Basegirlball ( talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Orphaned since November '06, no evidence of notability another than puff Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Article is in more of a need to be cleaned and deodorized. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A fact sheet is not an encyclopedic artic.e Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a path, and despite promo fluff to the contrary no evidence that it's a notable one. Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Cornell University#Academics -- JForget 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
nn and unreferenced part of a part of a uni. No sourced content, nothing worth merging. Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
nn local org Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nom is banned. Merge at will. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia and Gerry Anderson was supposed to have been merged a year ago, no one did it. No one cares and frankly, it's redundant. Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No problem with having sub-articles for the main article (we have a few), but polemical forks are just going to add to bad blood and further fuel disputes, especially when their title is that inflammatory (you should have seen the lengths I had to go to to retitle Operation Summer Rains as 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict). Incidentally, anyone knows why the 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article doesn't appear to at all mention the 2007 Israel-Gaza conflict? I am hoping to see energies expended toward streamlining & organizing the 2006, 2007, and 2008 articles, than ones devoted to one side trying to get an edge over the other (reply on my talk page if you have ideas). El_C 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This poorly thought out and POV title violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (citing and backing a propaganda article from the Tehran Times: Israel's Holocaust against Gaza by Khalid Amayreh that is all twisted hype), because there is no "Holocaust" going on since this is (a) an armed conflict between two armies Hamas (trained and armed by Iran) and the IDF, (b) there is no record of genocide, and (c) there are relatively minor casualties on both sides in this new chapter of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The contents of this article should be merged after editing to comply with WP:NPOV policies into the NPOV 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article where this subject belongs. IZAK ( talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect back. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This individual failed to make it to the finals of American Idol, the reality show he is known for. Any notability obtained through sourcing is a staunch case of Recentism. How exactly is this individual notable? If he had a recording contract elsewhere, I might be able to see some notability, but I don't. I redirected it but that's been contested, hence me sending it here. Wizardman 00:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Redirect until he has a recording contract. This version can be kept in the history and restored once he becomes famous for getting a record deal. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unencyclopedic listcruft. Fails WP:N. We already have articles on most of these people, where their poll ranking is noted. We also put the information (available at DJ Magazine's site anyway) at DJ Magazine (where it's also excessive, but I'm not proposing that for deletion at present). I would also suggest the 2006&'07 lists get deleted, and any further such lists User:Lonelysoulq happens to create. Biruitorul ( talk) 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC. No notable label, no third party sources, and no reviews. Delete Undeath ( talk) 23:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a ghostwriter, something of a puff piece. Third party references aren't what you'd call reliable or significant in coverage. I'm also guessing the article's creator has something of a conflict of interest. Many of the claims are unreferenced and as celebrities are loathe to admit to using a ghostwriter these claims seem unlikely to be verified. So here it is for your perusal and opinions. Polly ( Parrot) 23:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep: I am the primary author of this article. I am new to Wikipedia and I am still figuring out how the site works, including policy and guidelines. I have amended the article the best I can, including referencing, but would appreciate some advice on any further improvements that could be made. Due to the secrecy surrounding the business of ghostwriting, it is not known how many books credited to other 'authors' Grant has been involved with, but one of her known books is Escape Domestic Violence (Hodder, 2007). There are other ghostwriters listed at Wikipedia. If this article should be deleted then I request all other ghostwriter pages be deleted too, including Clifford Thurlow and Andrew Crofts. Helen Grant is not only a ghostwriter, but an author, journalist and the founder of H ezine as well. I believe this makes her a notable person, but if this doesn't fall under Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to make any alterations and improvements necessary to avoid deletion. Please advise! ( Vintagewriter) 03:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE as repost. ... discospinster talk 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:Music. Unreleased music album due till May 2008. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 23:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:NOTE. A non-notable organization (Radio Station) for student group of a particular college ONLY and established on 14 March 2008 (less than 24 hours old). Information about this station can be added on the respective college article but in noway it deserves to have a standalone article. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non DeletionThere isnt even a Bodmin College Page and I have created a page twice before but lacked information, now I have it. There are only two college radios in Cornwall, the other one being Inferno Radio and in the near future we are expanding to a Community radio, making us on the level of Radio St Austell Bay who are deemed worthy of an article. This is a free wikipedia, not a communist dictatorship. Sotonfc4life —Preceding comment was added at 07:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was SPEEDY DELETE. ... discospinster talk 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as per WP:ORG. I know it is very close to Speedy but still I preferred AfD to have a discussion among active Wikipedian. -- Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus; default to keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
unsourced neologism - it was prod'd earlier but someone removed it because it was "in the urban dictionary" - not a source we put any stock in. Fredrick day ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that this subject is sufficiently notable. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non- notable one off episode of a TV Series Jpe ob 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment/Non Deletion I dont think this page should be deleted as all top gear spinoffs have a page so this one deserves it also. Sotonfc4life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotonfc4life ( talk • contribs) 10:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It shouldn't be deleted. Just expanded to meet the standards of a good article. Bearing in mind it was written the day after the event happened! LB22 (talk to me!) Email me! 13:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, for so so many reasons, notability being the biggest, POV/BLP/FORKing being the most troublesome. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No obvious claims to notability for this individual. Yellowrooftiles ( talk) 23:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems to be a trivial publication with no clear notability. Yellowrooftiles ( talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Article does not meet notability guidelines. No additional reliable source coverage has been provided. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Short film not listed on IMDB; article created by user with same name as director; no assertion of notability. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 22:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
OPINIONS
DISCUSSION WITH PRIMARY EDITOR, ETC
How My Dad Killed Dracula
http://farm.imdb.com/media/rm2772734208/nm2684485
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1731421/bio
http://allocine.imdb.com/media/rm777752576/nm1731421?slideshow=1
http://sposca.pbwiki.com/Skye+Borgman
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1534043/bio
http://audience.withoutabox.com/films/hmdkd
Here are several links to information regarding HMDKD that I did not create. The IMDB credit is not the only verification that this film exists. Because of IMDB's rules my film needs to screen at a festival before a credit is given. That is happening soon. However, these links will show that the film truly does exist beyond my self promotion of it. All facts contained therein are true and verifiable. If you need more information I'm happy to provide it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysoleil ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
First off,
Hello.
I'm new to wikipedia and I'm learning as I go. I appreciate your fact checking and I want to do everything I can to veryify the films validity. I've provided several sources showing that this film is as notable as any other film. It will have a screening soon but why does screening at a festival constitute tangibility or actuality or notability? I have a copyright from the US copyright office for the film. If I scan that and put it online as a JPG will that help?
If your film meets any of these criteria it will be included and not contested. I apologize for pasting the guideline here, but I thought it was a good way to make sure it was read in this instance.-- Torchwood Who? ( talk) 23:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the info. Since receiving this deletion status I've contacted Variety magazine. They are going to include a listing of my film in their upcoming production listings on Monday. I assume that will fall into the category of Publication of at least two non-trivial articles. I'm working on the second. That's the best I can do for now to satisfy your historically notable requirements. I can have those publications provided by mid next week. I would appreciate the information not being deleted until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.26.92 ( talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC#songs. Prod removed by author. This song has received no independant coverage in media or on music charts. Top google hits only include Disney, YouTube and AOLMusic type sites, showing the video or selling the album. The article for the album from which this song offers more than enough coverage. Wolfer68 ( talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. There are only four names in this list that I did not see in the parent article: Christopher Beeny, Tony Capstick, Louis Emerick & Kriss Akabusi. Every other name appears in the article with context and sourcing. Merging those four names without either would not do any service to an article that has obviously been diligently constructed. Merging the list entirely would be redundant. Should the editors of that list choose to reformulate information on cast into list within their article they certainly may. They have more performers in their article on which to draw than this list does. They also have more than enough to create a category if they choose (though as Lugnuts points out, such a category might well be ill-received.) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I originally created an article by this name intending to use it in the Last of the Summer Wine article but realized I couldn't use it so I speedied it. Someone since recreated it in an even more haphazard manner than I did. This list has the potential to become extremely long since the show has been on going on 29 series. It is messy and resembles an indiscriminate collection of information. Does not increase knowledge. Redfarmer ( talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Renaming can be done by editorial process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is up for GA review. My feeling is that it is a jokey business slang term. It is not notable and is a neologism. At best, it should appear in Wikidictionary. Wassupwestcoast ( talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep and improve. Consensus seems to have moved towards keeping and improving the article, and has been tagged as such. A merge can still be considered on the articles talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
English middle school with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:SCHOOL — BradV 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD, non notable and highly technical list. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by User:Jmlk17. Non-admin closure. Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Made up game apparently. Full of nonsense as well. EJF ( talk) 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Ach now, have you people been living in a cave this last 10 years? Its a good honest reliable article,no need to get yer knickers in a twist iver it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanna-kel ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no sourcing to show that this bomb rack is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Sounds like either a made-up term or its just non-notable. THE KC ( talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC). reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete no indication that this name is notable, or sources to indicate its purported origins. I would be surprised to learn that Native Americans had surnames prior to interaction with Europeans, so extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep, without determination of whether or not the article should be retitled and retained or merged and redirected. The primary question here is whether or not the article should be deleted, and consensus there seems quite clearly that it should not. Even the nominator, towards the end, argues that the article should be kept and retitled. While in cases of clear consensus, AfDs may close as keep with a result of merge or redirect, debate as to whether or not this is appropriate here seems to be ongoing. The question of whether or not the article should be merged and redirected or if it should be rather retitled is more appropriately continued in article talk space by procedure set out at Help:Merge. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) reply
There is already an article named 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) on the same topic(division). SMS Talk 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This sentence "The 7th Infantry Division is now part of the Pakistan Army, stationed in Kohat in the North western Frontier Province." I bet was added by a Pakistani editor, and the fact that it is not referenced should say something. All British units in India that did not return to British territory after Indian independence were of course disbanded. Do not delete.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A question my friend and I have had a disagreement over, which divisions were transferred to Pakistan on partition and of those still active; do they have their old formation signs from the British Indian Army, for instance 7th Div seems to have the golden arrow from before partition. Also I read that of the 1965 war divisions all except the armoured divs were from pre-partition.
Clearly the formation;s lineage is that of the old Indian Army division since it was actually the one transfered. Since the formation dates was also with the British Indian Army, it should be deleted and "7th Indian Army division" should link to 7th Infantry Divison (Pakistan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparten ( talk • contribs) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Moreover to take over the personnel and assets of the British Army division, the British Army had to disband the division under the Indian Army Act, 1911 and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act 1939 c. 17, which it was mandated to do by the force of the Indian Independence Act, 1947 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore the only link between the two units is insignia.
As I suggested before, the article needs to be moved to the correct title in accordance with the Naming convention (units) as 7th Indian Infantry Division (United Kingdom), and recategorised accordingly.-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army
"the Army of India consisted of two separate entities: the Indian Army and the British Army in India. The former consisted of Indian Army regiments originating in India, while the latter were British Army regiments originating in the United Kingdom which were sent to India on a tour of duty"
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/8punjabreg.html
Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Sikhs, Rajputana Hindus (other than Rajputs, Jats and Mers) Punjabi Mussalmans; Muslims from Punjab.
Here another one the 10 Baluch Regiment
http://www.pakdef.info/pakmilitary/army/regiments/10baluchreg.html
Class Composition: 1923 Punjabi Mussalmans, Pathans, Baluchis and Brahuis 1946 Punjabi Mussalmans from the Punjab (less Ambala Civil Division) including Niazi and other Pathans from the Punjab. Hazarawalas of NWFP and Mussalmans of Jammu and Kashmir State and Gilgit Agency, Dogras from the Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir State. From within the administrative borders of the NWFP of British India. NWFP states and Tribal Territory.
Dogras being Hindu.
And as for lineage The Rajput Regiment http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES//index.php?page=shop.browse&category_id=105&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26
The Rajput Regiment is from the Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) lineage. 31st Bengal Native Infantry, raised in 1778, later became 3 Rajput
And another one Garwhal Rifles In 1891, the two Gorkha Companies were separated and the remaining six Garhwali companies were re-designated as the 39th Garhwal Regiment of the Bengal Infantry.
The 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) has an obvious, clear linkage to the 7th Indian Infantry Division, and thus, along the lines of 4th Indian Division, all the information should be at one page, probably the present day formation, with redirects elsewhere. Buckshot06 ( talk) 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(2) No law and no provision of any law made by the Legislature of either of the new Dominions shall be void or inoperative on the ground that it is repugnant to the law of England, or to the provisions of this or any existing or future Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, or to any order, rule or regulation made under any such Act, and the powers of the Legislature of each Dominion include the power to repeal or amend any such Act, order, rule or regulation in so far as it is part of the law of the Dominion.
(2) as from the appointed day, while any number of His Majesty's forces, other then His Majesty's Indian forces, is attached to or serving with any of His Majesty Indian forces- (a) He shall, subject to any provision to the country made by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion or Dominions concerned or by any other of the Governor-General under the preceding provisions of this Act, have, in relation to the Indian forces in question, the powers of command punishment appropriate to his rank and functions; but (b) nothing in any enactment in forces at the date of the passing of this Act shall render his subject in any way to the law governing the Indian forces in questions.
12. (1) Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction or authority of His Majesty's Government United Kingdom, or of the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council or the any other United Kingdom authority, in relation to any of His Majesty's forces which may, on or after the appointed day, be in either of the new Dominions or else where in the territories which, before appointed day, were included in India, not being Indian forces.
(2) in its application in relation to His Majesty's forces, the Army Act shall have effect on or after the appointed day- (a) as if His Majesty's Indian forces were not included in the expressions "the forces" His Majesty's" and "the regular forces" and (b) subject to the further modifications specified in parts I and II of the third Schedule to this Act. (3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and to any provision any law of the Legislature of the Dominion, concerned, all civil authorities in the new Dominion, and, subject as aforesaid and subject also to the provisions of the last preceding section, all service authorities in the new Dominions, shall, in those Dominion and in the other territories which were included in India before the appointed day, perform in relation to His Majesty's Military forces, not being Indian forces, the same functions as were, before the appointed day, performed by them or by the authorities corresponding to them, whether by virtue of the Army Act or otherwise, and the matters for which provision in to be made by order of the Governor-General under the preceding provision of this Act included facilitating of the withdrawal from the new Dominion and other territories aforesaid of His Majesty's military forces not being Indian forces.
I will quote a document by the former C-in-C of the Army, Field-Marshal Sir Claude J.E. Auchinleck who must be one of the best sources possible on the name of the Army:
[10]-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Tradition and lineage are separate concepts. Many different units may share traditions, but not have the same lineage. I doubt short of archival material I will find secondary sources. However I would have thought that the way this division name was written in its first CO's service record stood for something-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
And some more "myths" for our consumption regarding lineage. The lineage of the Punjab Regt of Pakistan from, the time of their rasing to 1957 when all the present Punjab Regiments were consolidated into one regiment (the 8th formed the new Baloch regt).
http://orbat.com/site/history/open1/pakistan_punjabregt.html 58.65.163.248 ( talk) 19:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
As you can see the author display not only the present but the prior lineage all the way to the first one.
Oppose to merge into 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan). If the claim is that the division has liniage to The India Army of pre-1947, then the initial formation should be the title of the article, which was 7th Indian Infantry Division, and a section devoted to its renamed status. As I proposed, the name needs to be 7th (Indian) Infantry Division (India Army) to conform with the naming convention. Alternatively the nation-in-brackets can be (Britain). --
mrg3105 (
comms) ♠♥♦♣
01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep, per reasons mentioned above. -- Eurocopter ( talk) 14:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep , this very lengthy debate shows how important this article is . it is better to fix it and deletion isn't wise . Pearll's sun ( talk) 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Below is a description of how unit diaries which were used for theatre and battle honours awards during the First World War were kept. The process was the same during the Second World War. I am not aware that copies were made for Indian and Pakistani Armies, so in fact no awards, unit or individual could be granted to post-1947 units based on pre-1947 records. Nor could unit records be used for unit history compilation after 1947.
"Unit Records: War Diaries A soldier's medal records normally only give his regiment or corps. To trace his actual unit, e.g. the battalion in an infantry regiment, the brigade and/or battery in the Royal
Artillery, the company in the Royal Engineers or Army Service Corps, you may need more information from family sources such as letters home, or his pay-book (AB 64) or discharge papers if these have survived in the family. Infantry battalions are normally included in the medal rolls in WO329 but not always on the medal index cards.
Each unit serving in a theatre of operations abroad was required to keep a daily War Diary on a special form, Army Form C 2118. These were normally kept by the unit's adjutant or another junior officer, although for smaller units they were kept by the commanding officer. They were maintained in duplicate, normally written in indelible pencil, and once a month one copy would be sent to the Adjutant-General's Office at the Base, Rouen. These latter copies have survived and are at Kew in class WO95. The other copies were retained by the unit, and some of these survive in regimental museums.
The stated purpose of keeping a War Diary was to compile a contemporaneous record from which, in due course, the history of the campaign could be written, and indeed the Official History was written with reference to these diaries (as well as other sources). For this reason, and also bearing in mind that it was often compiled late at night, sometimes after a full day's fighting, it contains little information on individual soldiers. The comings and goings of officers (including casualties) are usually recorded individually but it is rare indeed to find other ranks mentioned by name. A notable exception is for gallantry awards, as mentioned above. War Diaries normally begin on the first day of disembarkation so information on the unit's training and service in the UK is only given in rare cases.
The sequence in which WO95 is kept follows the "order of battle." This means that units and formations in France come first, then those in Italy, then those in Gallipoli, and so on through the remaining theatres of operations. Within each theatre, records of General Headquarters (GHQ) and attached units come first, then those of Armies and attached units (France only), then of Corps and attached units, then of Divisions. In the latter case, the divisional HQ diaries come first, then those of divisional troops (i.e. arms other than infantry), then those of each infantry brigade (HQ, four battalions, and usually a machine-gun company and a trench mortar battery). Records of Canadian, Australian, Indian and other overseas formations come after those of the corresponding British corps and divisions within the relevant theatre.
War Diaries of headquarters and units on the Lines of Communication (the rear area behind the fighting troops, as far back as the ports) are shown after those of the divisions in the relevant theatre. These are mainly hospitals and other medical units, the railway service, base depots and workshops, and the offices of the Base Commandants and staff at the ports.
Some War Diaries are incomplete, especially for the period of the German 1918 Spring offensives when some units were completely over-run in a matter of hours, and records of units attached to GHQ, Armies, Corps and the Lines of Communication may also be incomplete or even missing entirely.
British Regiments 1914-18 by Brig E A James (Samson Books, 1978) gives a brief summary of the locations in the UK in which each cavalry regiment and infantry battalion served, and the brigades and divisions to which they belonged thereafter. The movements and major actions in which each division served are listed in Order of Battle of Divisions by Major A F Becke, reprinted in the late 1980s by Sherwood Press, Nottingham (Parts 1 and 2A) and Ray Westlake Military Books of Newport, Gwent (Parts 2B, 3A and 3B). It is possible that your local library might have copies or could get them for you through the inter-library loan service.
Becke also gives details of which units comprised each division at various times, but it may be easier to get this information from the National Archives website by searching or browsing the index to class WO95. Alternatively, if you are already at Kew, the last few files in class WO95, numbers 5467 to 5500, contain detailed and indexed Orders of Battle for each of the theatres of operations, normally at intervals of about one month. A copy of the edition of November 1918 for France has also been published by the Imperial War Museum. These should enable you to trace the formations in which your ancestor fought at various times, which in turn will help to narrow down your search of the rest of the WO95 class index."-- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Regimental affiliations are handled by the Light Dragoons Regimental Association Charitaible Trust. Contact Fenham Barracks, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 4NP, Tel: 0191 2611046 ext 3140.
close this discussion as keep and if possible merge the 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) to this article . Pearll's sun ( talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Firstly, I do not hate any army. I am simply opposed to bad history of them.
Secondly, if SoLando will dismiss my sources without once referring to them, is there a point to bringing sources?
Thirdly, although the lineage claim is same issue, for the purpose of this article the regimental systems do not apply because we are talking about a formation.
Lastly, as was pointed out above, finally, what I have been saying is that the India Army, and the Armies of the two Dominions that emerged from it were entirely different organisations. These organisations had entirely different structures, foundations in legislation, Orders of Battle, etc. Although thee two successor organisations chose to retain many accouterments and traditions of the former organisation from which it was derived, they could not be a continuity of each other.
It seems to me the AfD was politically motivated because Pakistan editors may find it hard to to see the 7th Indian Infantry division due to the word Indian in it because they choose to believe this is one and the same as the same numbered division in the current Army, but it is not.
The name 7th Indian Infantry Division is a historical name used in many sources. The only question as far as I'm concerned is what state it belonged to per naming conventions. Is it British because of the British Raj administration and the officers or is it Indian Army because of the actual name of the higher organisation? It seems to me the use of (Indian Army) would duplicate the word Indian in the name, and confuse with the Indian Army of the present day. I therefore would suggest (British Raj) as ts reflects both the political and legislative historiography of the formation.
As for "why do I suspect that those War Office records would not support your contentions either." - suspicion is all yours because you don't know. However, had you read the sources I referred to, you would be less suspicious.
I have not repeated myself. I ave sown through use of memoirs, bioraphies, official puublications, primary documents, and eyewitness reports that on August 15 1947 the India Army came to an end, politically, legislatively, organisationally, in terms of economic burden on the UK government, in terms of War Office record keeping, socially as a community for British officers, and as an ethnicly mixed force in India. For most historians these would be enough, but you demand operational HQ orders for formation disbandment although not being able to provide any record of transfer of lineage yourself from any source, or even explain how that would have worked despite Regulations too the contrary. -- mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I have redirected to America's Next Top Model; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This game does not appear to have ANY independent notability beyond its connection to the TV show. There is no independent and extensive coverage of this game in any sources, and thus there is no need for an article about this game. Jayron32. talk. contribs 20:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable software. Some counterarguments were given on the talk page, but they make no reference to policy or guideline and I see no independent coverage of this software in any reliable sources. The article was created by a ZHLT developer. Jfire ( talk) 16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Empire (magazine). Non-admin closure -- RoninBK T C 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced with no sufficient claims of notability. I speedied this, but was suggested I take this to AfD. I have since then become neutral on this. - Warthog Demon 18:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete nothing indicating that this techie subject is notable. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 01:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Future album from a producer with no other albums as a performer. We don't know how notable this album will be because it hasn't yet been released. Powers T 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Hoax. Prodded, but removed by creator. Even if such a day did exist, there's no assertion of notability. - Warthog Demon 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Subject is a member of two notable bands. From prod: "Article does not assert or demonstrate subject's notability. It appears that the article is primarily about the bands the subject was in, not about the subject himself." Punkmorten ( talk) 17:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete as stated by zahnrad Thright ( talk) 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete at best a dicdef or neologism; this concept is unsourced and the usage among archaeologists is neither widespread nor uniform Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed saying this was a high profile quitting in the Netherlands but I can't find any evidence among the false positives in the ghits or evidence of RS coverage to back up this claim. Without that, he appears to fail WP:BIO for entertainers. TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn, nominator admits that this is WP:SNOW at work here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Interesting, but not notable. This is not a biography, this is ... um, I'm not sure WHAT it is. Mdsummermsw ( talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. I'm the first to admit it when I may have been too hasty and I may have been in this case. I'll withdraw as some of the references indicate possible notability. Non-admin close. Redfarmer ( talk) 17:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I normally wouldn't take an article to AfD this soon after creation, especially with an undercontruction tag, but this seems a clear cut case of non-notability. All sources are either user driven sites or connected to the person's college. No secondary source coverage. No news coverage. This would normally be speediable but I have a feeling it would be declined because of the tag. In any case, fails WP:BIO. Would recommend a WP:SNOW close on this. Redfarmer ( talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, fails WP:WEB. Khatru2 ( talk) 19:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per consensus and improvements. The article needs to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri, a title currently protected against creation. I will contact the protecting admin about the proper relocation of the article. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Missouri"|View AfD]])
Procedural nom. Tagged for speedy A7, but has had some media coverage. The references provided don't seem to be enough to meet WP:N guidelines though. On a related note, Better Courts for Missouri (without quotes) was deleted and protected after these comments, but the content and contributor appear to be different. Marasmusine ( talk) 16:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Freemarketman ( talk • contribs) 19:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Deor, the St. Louis Post and the Kansas City Star are Missouri's largest newspapers. Both specifically mention the organization. Missourinet is the Missouri radio version of the Associated Press. News covered by Missourinet is syndicated throughout the state. Also, the St. Louis Post article credits reform advocates, including Better Courts for Missouri, with pushing the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court to change policy. Specifically, the Chief Justice committed to adding more openness to the judicial selection process after Better Courts and its supporters began advocating reform.
A Lexis search reveals several articles by Missouri's preeminent legal newspaper, Missouri Lawyers Weekly. A number of these articles -- including what appears to be a cover story from the last week -- specifically mention Better Courts for Missouri.
For instance, one discusses a recent debate sponsored by the Federalist Society between Missouri Bar leadership and Better Courts for Missouri leadership. A wiki search of the Federalist Society indicates Better Courts for Missouri must have a decent amount of notoriety to have been invited to the Federalist Society's forum. ^ Wiese, Kelly. Daily Record "Proposed changes to Missouri Plan gather steam at Capitol." 2008-12-03.
( 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— 69.29.78.196 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: Deor, wouldn't it increase the significance of BCfM if one of its co-founders were a former President of the Federalist Society? 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Of the sources listed by Freemarketman above, the last four don't even mention the organization. This is a valid point. But while it may be true that some of the sources don't mention BCfM specifically, they certainly mention its members (William Placke being the obvious example). It should also be also be noted that even if the sources mentioned above are not enough to satisfy WP:ORG, a simple lexus/google search should. I did some basic google searching a few hours ago and found a giant stack of sources (AP, Post-Dispatch, etc. most of which have already been mentioned by the above contributer) which, in my mind, should satiate the requirments. If this is still unable to prove the groups legitimacy and notability, I wish someone would enlighten me on what could. ( Grange1272 ( talk) 05:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
"Placke and Jonathan Bunch, executive director of the newly formed “Better Courts” group, said the judges' retention elections virtually are meaningless, because no Supreme or appeals court judge ever has been removed from the bench." Watson, Bob. "Stith touts changes in judicial selection process". Jefferson City News Tribune. 06 Feb. 2008
"In Missouri, that would include groups called Better Courts for Missouri and the Adam Smith Foundation; legislators like Rep. Jim Lembke, R-St. Louis County and state Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph; the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; and sundry other outfits on the right who don't like the way the Missouri Non-Partisan Courts Plan operates." Horrigan, Kevin. "Stranger Than Fiction." ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 03 Feb 2008
"Opponents of Missouri's judicial selection process have formed a new group to push for change.The organization calling itself "Better Courts for Missouri" says it wants to make the selection of judges more open and accountable to Missourians. Supporters of the current judicial selection method say the new group simply would inject more money and politics into the courts." "Judicial selection opponents form group" Associated Press 30 Jan 2008.
"The Bar’s leadership is dominated by and beholden to trial lawyers, who often argue cases before the state’s judges, said Bill Placke, co-founder of Better Courts for Missouri, a judicial reform group. “There’s no good reason that plaintiff’s attorneys should be selecting the judges before whom they argue cases,” Placke said." "Missouri Plan gets scrutiny and support today" KC Star
And this is just a small sample of the largest newspapers in the state. If you'd like more, feel free to ask. ( Grange1272 ( talk) 19:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))— Grange1272 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: As 69.29.78.196 writes below, these are not trivial sources, nor was Better Courts mentioned "in passing". Each of these articles were written directly as a result of calls for reform in Missouri, and Better Courts was seen as the major advocacy group here. Again as 69.29.78.196 writes below, this group's calls for reform has led to three bills, an initiative petition, and an ongoing debate across the state. Shouldn't a group this influential have it's own wiki page? ( Grange1272 ( talk) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)) reply
Comment: I have reviewed the references on the Better Courts for Missouri wiki. The organization has been specifically mentioned in publications by the Kansas City Star, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Missourinet, the Missouri Bar Association, the Jefferson City News Tribune (state capital's newspaper), among others. I respectfully suggest the extensive coverage the organization has received in a short period of time makes it notable. 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)— 69.29.78.196 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment: :Redfarmer, the references may seem trivial to you, but as someone who follows Missouri politics I would like to point out that every one of those articles was generated as the result of the advocacy of Better Courts for Missouri. The organization's website explains that it exists to encourage reform of the Missouri Plan for selecting judges. Each of these articles is about that very topic. Wouldn't it make sense to have an encyclopedia entry for the main 501(c)(4) that is urging reform? 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: As for Better Courts for Missouri, it appears that Missourinet -- syndicated all over Missouri -- the Kansas City Business Journal and Missouri Lawyers Weekly have all done some sort of profile of the organization. These are linked on the main page. 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: I would also point out that this entry has more references and sources than does the "Missouri Plan" entry, which is the subject of the ongoing debate in Missouri. 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Here are a few articles about the organization:
(1) Jefferson City News Tribune (2) City Business Journal (3) MissouriNet (4) Associated Press 69.29.78.196 ( talk) 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment: Sorry for this late entry, I've been without internet for the weekend, but I'd like to respond to some allegations that my account is some kind of SPA. Yes, I am a wiki-novice, but everyone starts somewhere, and I thought it would be fun to begin with a page on a group that has cause quite a stir at the capitol. Perhaps I should have waited until I was a more established user to start such a controversial page, but I was unaware it would be so controversial at the time. There's not much that I can add that hasn't already been stated by others on the board, but I would simply like to say that this group is notable (just ask anyone at the capitol. Tempers will flare.) ( Twooclockjazz ( talk) 15:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)) reply
Comment If the article is kept, I expect it to be moved to Better Courts for Missouri without the incorrect quotation marks, which for some reason I could not do. Reywas92 Talk 22:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep The article has 13 references now, most of which are published news articles about the group. There's no reason to delete now other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also unprotect the version w/o quotes and rename. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Nothing in reliable sources to show notability. IMDB is not a reliable source. The one link in the article which looks promising turns out to be a dead link. No prejudice to re-creation with better sourcing. Black Kite 18:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced; a google search comes up with no reliable third party sources AgnosticPreachersKid ( talk) 21:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The article "Max Sohl" DOES meet the WP:PORNBIO criteria. Mr. Sohl is an award winning director. His debut video "Dawson's 20 Load Weekend" received a total of 6 Bareback Video Awards in 2004 including Video of the Year. Mr. Sohl has been credited with discovering international porn star Dawson. A google search for Max Sohl shows that his videos are sold not only in the United States but also around the entire world including the UK, Australia, Germany, China and elsewhere. Mr. Sohl was at the center of a organized protest in 2005 which led to articles appearing in the gay press including The New York Blade [24]. His works have received rave reviews in multiple publications both online and in print including rad video, onguys, adultdvdtalk and many many others. mannet.com went so far as to create an entire Max Sohl page to feature reviews of his videos all in one place. Proposing this article for deletion was the work of an over zealous editor - if anything - as per the Wikipedia:Deletion policy, it should have been proposed that the article be improved. Cainebj ( talk) 23:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable local radio show/web content. Searches yield Technobabble. Prod contested without rationale. Jfire ( talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete. Useight ( talk) 16:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Don't be confused by how this is worded, it's not a neologism - it's an advert for a non-notable webdesign company (tried to CSD it yesterday but other people like to generate work for the rest of us). Fredrick day ( talk) 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep Non Admin Close. Dusti talk to me 18:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
From the text, this mall has less than 10 stores open in a two story mall and is dying. It seems to have no assertion of notability and be more of a comparision between this mall and the more notable Warwick Mall. Does not appear to meet WP:N. Doesn't even have a website. Collectonian ( talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 04:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced article about nn voice actress, so nn we don't know where or when she was born, whether she's still alive, or anything close to material that one would expect in an encyclopedic biography. The article, with only tweaks has lain in this dismal state for over 2 years, without expansion or improvement, presumably because there is nothing more that could be said.... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Delete as a blatant copyright violation ( Criteria G12). -- Allen3 talk 15:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable - fails WP:N, no references - fails WP:V and WP:RS ukexpat ( talk) 15:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Yannismarou ( talk) 20:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Completely fictional wrestler. Editor has also added this false information to other articles Mshake3 ( talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Per all my reasons on the last AfD, the list is compiled in a manner that constitutes original research. In this case, being sourced is irrelevant. The word "fuck" is notable and the films themselves are also notable, which does not make this mere statistic notable. Note, this has nothing to do with censorship. The Dominator ( talk) 15:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete without prejudice to creation of a redirect. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable, list of matches in a league season AR TYOM 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Rewritten and notable. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for Shooting Dogs. I suggest merging the article to Shooting Dogs since the only assert of notability in the article is his involvement with Shooting Dogs. Ozgod ( talk) 03:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus, which defaults to keep. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The only reference cited on this page is a travel book, hardly an authoritative source. The ethnic groups in Lampung according to the last census are in fact Javanese, Sundanese, Peminggir, Pepadun, Malay, Bantenese, Abung Bunga Mayang, Minangkabau, ... Caniago ( talk) 13:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. Article needs improvements, expansion and citations though if it is to survive a future deletion nomination. Tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The ethnic group does not exist according the Indonesian census and the academic publications I've looked at. The ethnic groups in South Sumatra, the location of Palembang are, according to the last census are in fact Malay, Javanese, Kerinci, Minangkabau, Banjarese, Sundanese, Buginese, Madurese, Betawi, Bantenese ... Caniago ( talk) 14:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
actual notability unclear, perhaps buried in flowery and POV overtones; article states some connection to Wikipedia and JFK -- what??? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy close, please sort this out through normal editing and a requested move if necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Imaginary unexisting geographical renaming of scientifically researched Balti Steppe, no single authority-weigth reference for Balti Plain or Balti Plateau available, except a page with porn adds. Britannica calls it Balti Steppe, just as internal Moldavian and other external sources listed on the Balti steppe talk page, copied to created Bălţi Plain talk page [47] (including European Commission, etc...). Per previous discussion on the talk page, consensus was reached on the name Balti Steppe. This article may also meet criteria for speedy deletion. The template for the first nomination was deleted minutes after it was placed [48] Moldopodo ( talk) 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. And create redirect from this page title to Satyagraha. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFF. Girolamo Savonarola ( talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge. I have redirected to Cloak and Dagger (comics); knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable comic book mutant. I could not find any sources for it. Blast Ulna ( talk) 12:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This shows little to no notability for the record label. It was deleted in June 2007 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oasis Entertainment. All the references here appear to be press releases, which cannot be used to established notability. The only two source that appears to be a non-press release is the Coffee Talk article, but that doesn't appear to proivde a lot of notability. Metros ( talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is an advertisement masquerading as an article. Metal-rod exercises has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. The material used in an attempt to assert notability is self published by the creator of the article. The primary contributor to this article has written a self-published book on the subject (which is the only source cited in the article) and runs the website http://www.metalrodexercises.com/. This is a clear conflict of interest and per Wikipedia policy, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable reliable sources. Searches for other reliable sources turn up few (if any) third-party published sources. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Quarte t 13:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect. I am having a difficult time determining if and when material has been merged from this article into the parent. There is a note on the talk page of the article suggesting an editor placed material on the subject in the parent article in September of 2007. All edits to the parent article in that time range have been deleted, obscuring contribution history, but deleted edits suggest that the material was rewritten, not merged and there is no note of a merger from this article in the edit summaries of the parent article (deleted or otherwise). A note of merger on March 4th doesn't seem to have been accompanied by any transfer of material, and the note does indicate that the material is already there. I'm assuming at this point that "merge" has been used in this AfD more in the sense of duplicated substance, not duplicated text. :) If in spite of my efforts to comb through the history here, there has been substantial transfer of material, the redirect should be placed in Category:Redirects from merges by placing the template {{ R from merge}}. A null edit with a link to the destination article as set out at Help:Merge also needs to be made. Otherwise, redirect is sufficient, and it is within consensus that the redirect be protected if efforts are made to restore the article without sufficient sourcing to verify stand-alone notability. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not stated for this radio program. The article previously survived an AfD, with the strong suggestion (but no consensus) that it be merged into Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus. The merge has been completed, but the article was recreated. I doubt that this article could ever contain more useful information than that in Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus, and is really only acting as advertising. I propose that we delete and redirect to Most Holy Church of God in Christ Jesus Papa November ( talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable company, no assertion of notability (fails WP:N and WP:CORP), no references other than the official website, (fails WP:V.) Ran a Google search, didn't find anything that would qualify as a non-trivial secondary source. Mister Senseless™ ( Speak - Contributions) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
(UTC)
The result was Keep, nomination has been withdrawn after a reference was produced showing the song has charted. This after both delete opinions had been made and appears that it would have addressed their concerns. Davewild ( talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
individual song fails WP:MUSIC, lacking notable cutural significance or appearance on charts - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
"for me, having a music video for a song makes the song notable, but since I found nothing charted for the band on Billboard"
Magnum valentino ( talk) 17:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)Try the UK charts. It has a music video, and by your criteria is thus notable. Say someone saw the video but didn't know the title, if they checked this page it might shed some light on their situation. This page is just as valid as every other singles page. At least I'm contributing something, rather than scouring the internet looking for something to do, such as deleting things from Wikipedia, which benefits absolutely no-one, rather than the alternate which has potential benefits. reply
Magnum valentino (
talk)
21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)No no no no no, it is not my opinion, it did chart in the UK, it reached number 45/6. WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT!
reply
Magnum valentino ( talk) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)The following link shows the Chart positions of a few Sepultura singles Hopefully this will end this debate once anf for all, but I would also like to point out that this song is one of the band's most enduring songs and a classic metal staple of the 1990s. Please bear in mind that this is not a page for in indiviudal song, but rather an article about a genuine release, a CD and vinyl single which DID have a music video and DID chart, so those previous arguments to the contrary should be ignored. reply
http://www.rockdetector.com/discography,7880.sm?type=SinglesEPS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnum valentino ( talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Magnum valentino ( talk) 14:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Thanks Chris. I'm removing the deletion template now seeing as previous conditions have been proved false. reply
Magnum valentino (
talk)
17:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)Stupidly I never thought to update the page with the link to the chart page! Will doing so remove the deletion page?
reply
Magnum valentino ( talk) 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The following website also confirms this, though I couldn't find any links to the latest book. reply
http://www.polyhex.com/music/chartruns/chartruns.php
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The title, Andok's Lechon, follows under wiki notability guidelines for deletion. Andok's Lechon is a single item on the menu of this fast-food chain. It is a pork product. Not only does a single menu item fail the notability criteria, but nothing in the article bothers to describe it. The majority of the content is around random bits of info about the parent company with a few references to poultry and beverage items. It includes a subsidiary company reference and an item on its menu also. Again, forking off onto a new topic.
This article had already once been nominated for speedy deletion for advertisement although the tag was removed without any explanation and again, the neutral point of view has been lost with the inclusion of emotional terms like "most popular...in the Philippines", "dominance", "very popular", and "sizzling". While these are normally minor edits, it does prove a history of reading like an advertisement.
Over all, this article has nothing to do with its own title. It also is too forked to be simply renamed and categorized as a stub. It titles to a pork product but the only food references included are for chicken and vegetable dishes. Perhaps the writers are having language translations problems, which would explain this: "Andok's Litson is one of the most popular roasted chicken products in the Philippines." That is not the name of a product they sell, it is the name of the company. Another irony is that Litson it also another Tagalog word for suckling pig, not chicken, (roasted or otherwise).
I would have no objection to separating this into an article about the company, provided it has verifiable sources and remained on topic with a NPOV. As it stands, it's simply a jumble of randomness. Lightertack ( talk) 20:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Maud Molko has worked once for Marc Jacobs in 2004 but she has done nothing else since then and her notability is vastly questionable. Not working on anything significant for four years is a good indicator, let alone the infamous google test that reaches a mere 416 hits, which is clearly too low to be considered notable. Thiste ( talk) 17:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 22:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable enough. Google test shows 367 results. For perspective, there are about one thousand models in just parisian agencies. They probably all hit that kind of numbers on google. Now do we need an article for all of them? Thiste ( talk) 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, fails the notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 22:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Radio sitcom broadcast by a small student-radio. The claim is that the show has a "cult following" but I found no source backing up that claim and in fact I haven't found any coverage besides this which in fact was written by the sitcom's main organizer. Much of the content is a plot summary of each episode but there is no critical commentary accompanying it. Pichpich ( talk) 12:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Fails WP:BAND. Non-notable album by a non-notable band that was previously deleted. No reliable secondary sources provided in the article. Nsevs • Talk 12:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Once proposed for deletion but tag removed by author. Company of questionable notability with an article written more like a brochure than an actual article. From the contributions of the author, there's a strong suspicion of conflict of interest. Pichpich ( talk) 12:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
There is no proof that the actress Laura Greenwood is to be involved in Hollyoaks
BlonddudeGoneDark (
talk •
contribs) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨
REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight
12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was Redirect to David H. M. Brooks the correct spelling of the article name. The correct thing to do in the first place would have been just to move the article to the correct title instead of creating a new duplicate article. There was no need for this to come to AFD. Davewild ( talk) 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This should be deleted because it was created as an accidental duplicate of David H.M.Brooks by the accidental addition of a space between the '.' and 'Brooks'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archnoid process ( talk • contribs) 2008/03/14 02:45:13
David H.M.Brooks has been moved to the more appropriate David H. M. Brooks. I'd redirect this article to the new name if this AfD weren't still going on. B.Wind ( talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Close - listed in the wrong xFD name-space. Non-admin closure and will relist at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ELLIOT PRIOR. Yngvarr (c) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This page has been created by a pupil that attends the same school as me, meant as a direct attack on me. I find this content extremely offensive and as it contributes nothing to Wikipedia as it is not factual, it should be deleted. Cyber bullying should not be allowed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmenonpie ( talk • contribs) 2008/03/13 13:51:15
The result was Keep. I wouldn't be sorry to see this article disappear, as it has wasted enough of my time recently (I have it watchlisted, and have reverted vandalism, deleted multiple attempts to insert unsourced material, and blocked a multitude of sockpuppets). Nevertheless, it is sourced - though many of those sources need fixing or removing - clearly meets WP:LIST and is equally clearly not an indiscriminate list. So it looks like I'll be fixing it for a while longer :) Black Kite 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:NOT#LIST -- that page is simply a list. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Keep. The reason it is a list is because that is what was agreed in a previous discussion when it was an article about hooligan firms. The content about the firms was moved to the article Football hooliganism and to keep that article manageable it was decided to make the Hooligan firms article into a list; something that appears all over wikipedia with all sorts of articles. (And yes I know that comparisons with what happens on other articles is not really relevant, however the fact remains that there are numerous football related lists. For instance, List of association football competitions, List of top-division football clubs in UEFA countries and List of football clubs in Latvia to name but three.) If of course you feel that it should be expanded from a list then that is what should happen rather than simply proposing it be deleted. ♦Tangerines♦· Talk 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a directory
Policy shortcuts:
WP:NOT#DIR
WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
WP:DIRECTORY
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed.[3] Wikipedia articles are not:A
Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)
That's the policy I'm referring to. This list quailifies as such, and as such, consensus or not, will be deleted as policy over-rides consensus.
Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!!
17:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:NOT#LIST, not to mention fails to assert notability and not referenced. Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) reply
per policy needs (and most likely will) be deleted per WP:NOT#LIST Kosh Sez We don't need no stinkin FUR!! 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep per WP:SNOW, bad faith nomination. Non-admin closure. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Violation of Neutral Point of View Markmulligan ( talk) 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep and tag for cleanup The article needs work, that much is true, but the nom is obviously a pointy one. Jtrainor ( talk) 17:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge and redirect to Zekki Pasha where the content has already been merged. Davewild ( talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Reason the page should be deleted
This page already exists under Zekki Pasha along with numerous references. This page has no references and is poorly written as to make the reader believe Zeki Pasha helped the Serbian's gain their independence. Kansas Bear ( talk) 23:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge with Konami_Code#Mentions_in_popular_culture (non-admin closure). SilkTork * YES! 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm just going to afd, skipping prod. Like most WP:TRIVIA sections, this is basically a lot of WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. If anything, merge into the Konami Code article, but I don't see this needing it's own discrete article. I would not recommend neither merge nor redirect Yngvarr (c) 11:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This has been debated before, and the verdict was delete. See http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_Konami_code_references_in_popular_culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.103.160.10 ( talk) 15:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
— 202.71.45.45 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AtaruMoroboshi ( talk) 10:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Merge verifiable items into Konami Code. References in popular culture seem to be a significant aspect of the topic, but isn't substantial enough for its own article. Bill ( talk| contribs) 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Demo albums fail WP:MUSIC. Possibly CSD G4 (recreation), but I can't check against the previous version. B. Wolterding ( talk) 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod contested without improvement. Non notable local radio presenter, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney 303 11:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by Nick Dowling ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as patent nonsense. cab ( talk) 10:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, originally thought to be a joke/hoax entry authored by the party's leader, based on a MySpace profile listed in the article. The prod was subsequently removed, accompanied by a content addition stating the party is "currently in the process of formally registering with the Australian Electoral Commission". A check of the Commission's website shows that the party is not as yet recognized.
I found no online references for the party, except for MySpace and here. Listed ministers appear to be friends, relations or perhaps enemies; are celebrities (e.g. Tom Cruise, The Chasers) with no clear connection to the party; or are members of another political party, as with Pauline Hanson of the AEC-registered "Pauline's United Australia Party". It is true that humorous or spoof political candidates have a long and colorful history, some with their own WP entries (e.g. Sister Boom-Boom, Dick Tuck, Monarchy Party), but here reliable sources appear lacking. And while there is precedent for joke members of a group listed in a Wikipedia article (e.g. Rakeops), an AEC-registered political party requires 500 actual exclusive members. Regardless of how the content is framed in the article, failures of reliable sources, verifiability, notability, and the overall dubious nature of the party's claims make this article suitable for AfD recommendation. Michael Devore ( talk) 10:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be that controversial an influence, as I can't find any serious reference to this person online (it is a common name, however). Similarly, I can't find any proof of the claim to be the President of Delta Iota Kappa. There is one newspaper reference from a local paper provided, but I don't think that that is enough to attest to this person's notability (or notoriety). Lankiveil ( speak to me) 09:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete per notability and cyrstal ball concerns. Davewild ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This future tour is of one country only, by a former Spice Girl. It basically says she is touring to support her latest album, then goes on to list tour dates. I have listed this AfD under cat=O, since it is a corporate product, and I do not feel it is Wikipedia's job to advertize for millionaires. Also, it's not notable, has no sources, and is crystal ballery--tour dates get changed and cancelled all the time. AnteaterZot ( talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Demo albums generally fail the notability criteria ( WP:MUSIC#Albums).
Note: This nomination is for the demo album only; notability of the band may be a different issue. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 09:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 01:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable video game character. Yngvarr (c) 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (non-admin closure), page has been blanked and tagged for speedy deletion. Littleteddy ( roar!) 08:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)" reply
Blatant advertising. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete A7 bio. seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Somebody confusing Wikipedia with MySpace. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a made up game Salavat ( talk) 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep but clean up, consensus is that the topic is notable and that the article can be improved. Davewild ( talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Now, don't get me wrong. This is a style of music. However, this article is abysmal. First of all, there is only one source that has any coverage of snap music, and even that is just a short paragraph in an article that doesn't really have anything to do with snap music.
The entire criticism section is awful. There is no mention of snap dancing in the section, or even in the article that is the source for some of the section.It starts off by saying that snap dancing has been criticized as "garbage" and provides nothing to back this up. The "snap dance" section is pretty bad too.
So, at the moment, there is no indication of notability. It's also riddled with irrelevant, POV, uncited ramblings. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per concensus. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a list of loosely associated topics. This list serves little purpose, especially since there is already a category page for Macintosh software, and this page does nothing more than list a number of them, which could be construed as saying that the listed programs are more important that other ones. If someone wants to search for Mac programs, there are better places than Wikipedia, as the article even states, but even the category page here would be more complete than this. Althepal ( talk) 04:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. No other word for it. A kind of MySpace personal shrine. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 04:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was convert to disambig. This article will be deleted, and (disambiguation) will be moved to the unappended title. The new Highlights page's link to the hairstyle will be modified. If I miss anything, please let me know. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A better version of this article already exists at Hair highlighting. Maybe the information here should be merged? Lady Galaxy 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was No Consensus defaulting to Keep, sources found during the debate suggest some notability but some remain onconvinced that they meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 12:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a recreated version of a recently deleted page. By spelling the title in a different way (lowercase 's' in the last name) it comes back as new. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 04:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Let's see here... a real mess of an "article" created by a editor with a single purpose account, muddled format, generic (non-specific) "award citations", recreation of a deleted article. Did I leave anything significant out? Strong delete. No systematic bias here - notable Singaporeans have articles in Wikipedia: there are ways of demonstrating notability as Singapore has the greatest Web penetration in the world. B.Wind ( talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable band
Beeblbrox ( talk) 03:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable. I've looked and looked for something encyclopedic. nada. Kingturtle ( talk) 03:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Nothing to merge as all logos are already present in either Fox Broadcasting Company#Logos or Fox Sports (USA). Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This page is nothing but a gallery/repository for logos of Fox Broadcasting, which goes squarely against WP:NOT, and quite possibly again fair-use of logos on WP. Speedy delete was declined, so bringing here to Afd for discussion, and using this as a test Afd for these articles. Russavia ( talk) 03:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable webmistress, v-blogger and blogger. I ran into the article on a recent AfD for X Culture Magazine, a weblog she founded. The AfD resulted in no consensus, the Keep voters citing Bishai's resume, and it struck me to actually research it. I wound up filing a prod, which was removed without comment by an SBA created today. Beyond that ...
No doubt Ms. Bishai is a perfectly pleasant young woman, but despite what appears to be energetic self-promotion, the world just hasn't taken much notice of her. RGTraynor 03:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as irredeemable advertisement. Pegasus «C¦ T» 11:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Plain advertising for an event ("Miss Curves U.S.A.") that hasn't even started yet. Nothing to do with Wikipedia at all. Rien ( talk\ stalk) 03:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence found that the company exists. Does not meet the notability guidelines. Article claims notability so speedy not used. Gtstricky Talk or C 02:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO Veritas ( talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Neologism / original research. Guerilla spam for the external link at the bottom. -- RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 02:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete by User:Bradeos Graphon, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSIC by a long shot. Possible COI. Also, the page's creater, and a sock, have been deleting the speedy deletion templates off of it. So I brought it here. Delete Undeath ( talk) 01:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete ( Criteria A1) -- Allen3 talk 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
C:\>RIEN_ 01:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This article constitutes original research by synthesis. It takes a relatively obscure phrase, used three times by Nicholas Kristof and once by Alex Kirby, and builds a framework that is not clearly supported by the underlying sources. As such, the article violates WP:NPOV and fails verifiability. It should be deleted because it doesn't meet these encyclopedic standards. *** Crotalus *** 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild ( talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web forum. Very poorly sourced; most is from the primary source (the site itself) and the ones that aren't, still aren't sufficient. Also wary of it being web promotion . . . this was once temporarily speedied, but failed and followed by an influx of fresh accounts making promotional comments on the talk page. In the interests of full disclosure, any of my personal beliefs were not factors into nominating this. - Warthog Demon 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Duplication of a category is not a reason to delete; however consensus focuses on other issues as well. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 04:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
list of red links is more like it. Listcruft Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Clearly notable. Reso lute 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
24 sources, but no evidence this airline is in any way notable. It's out of business and seems to be just another commuter airline. Not encyclopedic in tone and not something anyone is going to look up Basegirlball ( talk) 00:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete, pointless fork which tramples all over WP:NOT, much better dealt with via a link to this page [60] which is already there. Black Kite 18:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Nothing more than a list of football (soccer) results between two rival teams, of non-encyclopaedic value and fails Wikipedia is not a list of statistics. A summary is already present in the article Arsenal and Chelsea rivalry. Qwghlm ( talk) 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Not because its a German subject (I agree with the sentiments about sytemic bias), but because its a non-notable German subject, per reasoning given below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Although his band was popular, as an individual member of the band I believe this fails WP:MUSIC. — BradV 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Extensive precedent shows that additional notability is required. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply
He is just a reality show contestant who has done nothing of note apart from Survivor. Yes, he has been on two seasons, but recent precedent shows that that is not enough. -- Scorpion 0422 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Elvish Linguistic Fellowship? This is an encyclopedia, not a ton of Lord of the Rings crap. Give me a break! Basegirlball ( talk) 00:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy. SNOW. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A list of notable funders!notable organization. Spammy. What, does every museum in NYC have an article here? Basegirlball ( talk) 00:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete -- JForget 00:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Non notable promotional crap. Basegirlball ( talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep per WP:IAR, nominator gave weak rationale and has a history of possibly disruptive AfDs (and I'm a bit wary of a user whose first edit is installing Twinkle). Notability is clearly asserted in article anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Spammy with zero evidence of notability. This is ridiculous Basegirlball ( talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Speedily kept - notability estabilished. ÐeadΣyeДrrow ( Talk | Contribs) 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
What do you know? Another non-notable NYC gallery. They're a dime a dozen and enough with creating articles for all of them Basegirlball ( talk) 00:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy keep. Tiptoety talk 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
NN local org, huge COI issues. Only news coverage is NYC based papers, heardly evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a NYC museum directory. Basegirlball ( talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Orphaned since November '06, no evidence of notability another than puff Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep. Article is in more of a need to be cleaned and deodorized. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 00:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
A fact sheet is not an encyclopedic artic.e Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
It's a path, and despite promo fluff to the contrary no evidence that it's a notable one. Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Cornell University#Academics -- JForget 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
nn and unreferenced part of a part of a uni. No sourced content, nothing worth merging. Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Neutral Close per Snow/ Speedy Keep Nominator has been block as as a sockpuppet of a user making bad faith/invalid nominations. - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez ( talk) 07:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
nn local org Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. Nom is banned. Merge at will. SynergeticMaggot ( talk) 03:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvia and Gerry Anderson was supposed to have been merged a year ago, no one did it. No one cares and frankly, it's redundant. Bananaqueen ( talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. No problem with having sub-articles for the main article (we have a few), but polemical forks are just going to add to bad blood and further fuel disputes, especially when their title is that inflammatory (you should have seen the lengths I had to go to to retitle Operation Summer Rains as 2006 Israel-Gaza conflict). Incidentally, anyone knows why the 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article doesn't appear to at all mention the 2007 Israel-Gaza conflict? I am hoping to see energies expended toward streamlining & organizing the 2006, 2007, and 2008 articles, than ones devoted to one side trying to get an edge over the other (reply on my talk page if you have ideas). El_C 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC) reply
This poorly thought out and POV title violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (citing and backing a propaganda article from the Tehran Times: Israel's Holocaust against Gaza by Khalid Amayreh that is all twisted hype), because there is no "Holocaust" going on since this is (a) an armed conflict between two armies Hamas (trained and armed by Iran) and the IDF, (b) there is no record of genocide, and (c) there are relatively minor casualties on both sides in this new chapter of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The contents of this article should be merged after editing to comply with WP:NPOV policies into the NPOV 2008 Israel-Gaza conflict article where this subject belongs. IZAK ( talk) 07:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) reply