The result was redirect to International_Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu_Federation#Federations. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
While I'm sure they are a fine group of people, the Federation fails WP:ORG. Using the entire name "Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" (since all the words in it are common enough) yields a total of 35 ghits. Most of them are mentions in forums, blogs, sites related to the org or mirros of wikipedia. No hits on gnews. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Note to Rlendog: The articles you refer to are not under discussion here and would need to be nominated seperately. Sandstein 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is not notable and is part of a recent proliferation of these unnotable rivalry pages. Chidel ( talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
However, if those who are more learned than I seem to think that this article is not appropriate I accept its removal. Perhaps keep the pages seperate or unlinked to the Hewitt or Federer main articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
GO FORTH IN IGNORANCE! I HAVE LEFT WIKIPEDIA FOR GOOD! TENNISAUTHORITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 ( talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Entry for self-published crank occult/parapsychology book. Prod declined without comment. I can find some references to it through Google, but only from other crank books & sites. Needs either major rewrite or deletion, I prefer the latter. Hairhorn ( talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
There is a comment on the articles discussion page giving my argument, how did you not see it? I'll restate it here:
1) it is not occult or parapsychology, what is your source for this? or is labelling it like this a matter of your opinion?
2) it has ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers, is sold on Amazon and resold on many ebook selling websites, and the author's name gets over a million Google results - clearly many people have read it including Robert Watts the producer of Star Wars and Indiana Jones
3) I don't see how content or publication method are relevant to whether a book desrves a Wikipedia article or not, why is The Satanic Bible allowed an article? Many people have read this book therefore it should have a Wikipedia article
I find your ignoring of the discussion page and the labelling of this book as occult without any source very unprofessional, you have no basis for suggesting deletion of this article and frankly I'm a little offended that an article I put alot of effort into is considered unworthy because of the dislike of the it's content without even having read it.
- Words in sanskrit ( talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Most of the keep "votes" fail to establish why it's notable. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
With due respect to the editors who developed this article, I don't think it is notable. It's completely unsourced except for one reference I added, and details completely minor in-universe trivia of the Star Trek franchise. Mostly it seems to be based on passing remarks about fictional countries made by the characters. I've placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, and on the talk page of the creator ( User:Ritchy). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable psychologist. One self published book, and 3 published by a very small niche publisher. Article created as anti-psychiatry coatrack. Ridernyc ( talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bill (payment). Despite the...bizarre...nomination, this seems like a valid option. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I love you. Stevin speaks ( talk) 22:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Keeper | 76 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is unencyclopedic, since it consists entirely of in-universe plot summary. I assume the Starcraft Wiki already has this information. I think it qualifies as a list of minutia. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Not even sure what this article is trying to be. It looks like it started out being some sort of sub-genre of folk music. It then starts talking about Balkan music. Then there is a huge section on Muzika Mizrahit. Then a really long list of artists divided by country. The only section that has any sources is the Muzika Mizrahit which never mentions the term "pop folk" and already is covered in Mizrahi music Many of these regional forms of music already have there own articles for Laïka. Ridernyc ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Just look at all those performers from all around the world.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While a reasonable argument can be made that some sort of useful page could be created here, consensus seems to hold that this particular page is not it. It appears to be unsalvageable promotional text, and any encyclopedic article created here would be unlikely to use any part of it. ~ mazca talk 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This page is a neologism I'm not familiar with, and neither is Google apparently. ODAT = One Deal At a Time. Brief history of which website coined the term, and then the entire article is filled with links to shopping sites. I cleaned up a little, and then realized it doesn't make sense. I would have suggested G-11, but it isn't exactly spam, it's more like a link directory, so I'm bringing it here. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Serious ODAT Edit required==
I agree with spaceman7. It is a disappointing page that should be deleted. I friend has contacted me from Backcountry.com and asked me for help. I believe that an intern at backcountry.com created the page as an honest effort to conform to Wikipedia guidelines while under the direction of backcountry.com employees who were sincere about making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do to help? Should the user who created the page delete it ans ask a wikipedia editor for help? -- Petebertine ( talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) reply
- MaritFischer 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, Spaceman7 and Pete. Spaceman7, for introduction's sake, I am the Communications Manager at Backcountry.com.
I am truly sorry that the page has been deemed disappointing. Pete is correct, the intern that he mentioned, username Cmw0830, spent hours on this entry with an honest desire to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. She was a very diligent student, concerned with the rules, and meticulous in her effort to find sources and create links to outside sites wherever possible, (including to other ODAT sites that are completely unrelated in any way to Backcountry.com). Before she posted the entry, we did run it by Pete for his thoughts. We are all Wikipedia novices, and the rules really do run quite deep. We did not want to post something that would be inappropriate. Unfortunately, we obviously did not meet standards. Please accept our humble apology.
The term ODAT is relatively new (2006), and it was, in fact, coined by Dustin Robertson, the CMO of Backcountry.com, at the creation of SteepandCheap.com. It is also a business model for online sales on online stores, the links to which we, perhaps wrongly, thought a good idea to share. Our goal was to be as "encyclopedic" as possible (despite the recency of the coined term and the lack of tomes of external references aside from trade and consumer magazine articles and blog mentions), including the genesis of the acronym and the evolution of the business model. It seems to me, in reading the complaints against the page, that because the acronym is retail related, the information is not acceptable. I welcome any clarification on this point, as obviously, we are not experts here.
Out of curiosity, I checked the entry for BOGO, another marketing-related retail acronym. I've always wondered where this term originated. Interesting that when I Googled the term to find the origination, (since that information was not on Wikipedia), I found many more people like me who wanted to know, but no answers. It also seemed that a lot of them turned to Wikipedia for that exact information to no avail. Perhaps there is a non-saleslike way to relay this information about ODAT that would meet the community's standards? I welcome suggestions.
I have no emotional attachment to the entry as it appeared originally, or as it is now. If the edited version works for you and other members of the community, I would suggest that we leave it up and leave it at that. I would characterize this edited version as a stub, however. It would be a shame, and ironic, for it to be deleted now because it now is lacking enough information. If that is the consensus, however, we totally understand and we accept the decision.
One more thing. I am not sure why Cmw0830's page was deleted. Perhaps because of inactivity? That breaks my heart. She is a great girl, who worked really hard to do what she was advised as the "right thing" in terms of communicating on Wikipedia. She also just graduated from college and has been in Africa for two months on a service project, a great reason for not replying to comments or even visiting her page. I would hate for her to blacklisted for any reason, since she really was only trying to do good work and be of service.
The bottom line, Spaceman7, is we are totally willing to work with you or anyone else to make small edits to or change the very basic current (edited) entry for ODAT to allow for it to stay up. If that is not possible, we have no problem taking the post down. I just ask that you please recognize a willingness to learn and a desire to present valid information, and refrain from taking any further action on Wikipedia against Backcountry.com as a whole.
Thank you.
- MaritFischer 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability is not inherited; and no sources were found to demonstrate any notability of his own. ~ mazca talk 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Barely any content and no prospect for more. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
DeleteReason. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Zbar is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine Droliver ( talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason Psikxas ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Steinbrech is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategies Droliver ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Herman is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver ( talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non Notable. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Gentile is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategies Droliver ( talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Keepers point to his contribution to a frequently cited paper as evidence of notability, but there appears to be no reliable coverage about this guy, necessary for writing a biography. Flowerparty☀ 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Deletenon notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Edwards is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine Droliver ( talk) 19:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable Droliver ( talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) No disrespect intended, but Dr. Antell is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver ( talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable author, has 3 books published by vanity presses. the single reference given in the article is to a photo caption of her appearing in a fashion show LuvGoldStar ( talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
We can try to make up all kinds of reasons to declare someone who is not notable (relationship with a famous person, having a children's book translated from Dutch to another language) but they are either notable or not. An occasional waiver of the notability guidelines is fine but it shouldn't become routine or they become meaningless. Drawn Some ( talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3. In addition, ManiacalManatee ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, as his only contributions have been to this article and the current deletion discussion. + An gr 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This looks like a hoax, and a previous incarnation of it was speedily deleted under the G3 criterion because of it. The article creator says it is not a hoax; however, I have not been able to find anything on the sole reference in Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon.com, or WorldCat. I think someone is probably just playing with us. Instead of re-deleting speedily this time, I bring it to AfD to seek consensus. Lady of Shalott 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Steel Panther. Flowerparty☀ 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
NN album, no significant charting history that I can find. roux 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unanimously agreed to not meet the notability guidelines at this time. ~ mazca talk 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Author doesn't appear to be notable. roux 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The author's article was also deleted for a similarly-terminal complete lack of notability. With no merge target and no independent sources, the consensus is clearly to delete this too. ~ mazca talk 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable in any way. roux 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 17:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is self promoting of someones plans, does not exactly following WP policies. //Melonite ( talk) 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Whether or not Pravda is reliable, insufficient sources have been presented about this blogger to establish notability, as several !voters indicated. Cool3 ( talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Not WP:Notable. No reliable sources. Pravda is far from a reliable source. Borock ( talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was G4 and salt by Golbez, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Recreated YET AGAIN as per last nominations. TheLastStandOfPie ( talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Tagged for RS sources (ha ha, I'm so funny) since November 2007, but the only sources are from newsgroups and other unreliable sources. I think it's time for this to be listed at the AFD deletion list of articles that are to be deleted. Only sources that turned up in the last AFD were New Scientist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No real notability asserted. Sources are allmusic directory listings and trivial mentions. Deprodded with assertation that he's released several albums, but none of them are major. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Move to Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape). No consensus to delete. Flowerparty☀ 07:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Mixtape with very little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek ( talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can be re-created once sufficient info is found and added. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is duplicate of Hamburger, with so limited differentiation between European/Australian/Canadian/etc and American burgers that page split is unnecessary. Content resides in original article, so no need for merge. SpikeJones ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable character that could easily be merged into the Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D article. magnius ( talk) 14:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:AUTHOR (lacks recognition and wide citation by peers, recognized work or body of work, no indication of some new concept or theory), WP:PROFESSOR (No indication of any significant awards or significant society elections. There is some impact outside of academia with his fiction book but not what I'd call significant.), and WP:BIO (lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources). Google Scholar search brings up only 2 citations not authored by Sommer. Google news brings up a single hit, surprisingly low for an author. Not finding many reviews for the fiction book either. RadioFan ( talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Content will still be in the page histories if anyone wants to preform a merger. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
( View AfD)
All of these church articles are microstubs with no sources and altogether without indications of notability. I would suggest a merge for these articles to the diocese article, but without any sources on any of these, there's nothing to merge. Nyttend ( talk) 13:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:IAR. The only issue here is copyright and the original G12 tagger says that's no longer a problem. This is almost the same as a withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominator is creator of the page. Page was tagged for copyright violations at 23:55, 19 June 2009. Page rewritten and edited to ensure compliance. However the speedy delete tag remains. Request for assistance at WP:ANI produced no response or result whatever, although User:Gwen Gale questioned the page in re WP:BIO. So page is submitted for review re both copyright compliance and notability as per "CSD section (A7) cited and it states that the criterion of importance (not even notability) "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." Respectfully submitted, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 13:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SYNTH, there may be discussion of individual 8-sided scoreboards, but no independent sources cover the topic as a whole Citius Altius ( talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to be hoax or non-notable, as the references are fake and I am unable to find reliable sources. One book cited as a source doesn't seem to exist, and of those that do exist there is at least one – Renegade: The Lives and Tales of Mark E. Smith – in which Feinbaum is not mentioned. snigbrook ( talk) 12:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. and rename to ACO Intercontinental Trophy, or somesuch. Keeper | 76 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is entirely speculative. The two news sources mention that an "Intercontinental Trophy" will be held next year, but that it will simply use existing races from the American Le Mans Series, Le Mans Series, and Asian Le Mans Series. The entire existance of a World Le Mans Series is speculated only by the author based on the fact that a trademark for "World Le Mans Series" exists, but there is no evidence of an actual series. IIIVIX ( Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
@NaBUru: My mistake earlier: it needs to be ACO Intercontinental Trophy, since that is the title used in the sources. I've removed a couple of things that are OR from the article, but I'd be content with that, yes. 4u1e ( talk) 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested WP:PROD. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (books), which says a book must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and the article should therefore be deleted. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL because multiple independent sources must have provided strong evidence that the book will be published. TheLeft orium 12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An article on a non notable self published book. Already contested at prod. A search on author and tile returns 19 unique GHits, including Wikipedia. None of these are in depth or reliable, hence notability cannot be established. Nuttah ( talk) 12:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. 2 deletes, 3 keeps, no strong evidence either way thus overall no consensus Nja 247 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Mostly promotion (created by public relations company of which Biggs is a client). His most notable achievement seems to be winning a category in Wildlife photographer of the year. All winning, runner up and highly commended images in this competition are displayed in the Natural History Museum. Considering that only three of the overall winners of the 45 competitions have Wikipedia articles, this hardly makes the photographers of all of these noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia page. Similarly, having images used in an advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable. God Emperor ( talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. A few interviews on TV and contributions to collective books are a staple for a schloar. Delated of fr: by speedy deletion. Bokken | 木刀 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No signs of notability. This search yielded some unreliable sources, 38 of which are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Alexius08 ( talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources for this person include Evelyn Rothwell's notes for this composer's Trio for oboe in C major, when she edited it in the 1960s; the entry for "Suck, Charles J." in The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians, which is on page 162 in the 1954 edition; and Bruce Haynes' Music for oboe, 1650-1800: a bibliography, which lists Suck's other trios (2 for oboe, 2 for flute, and 2 for violin, in total) in Suck's entry on page 313. Uncle G ( talk) 13:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested WP:PROD, article about a young footballer with no appearances at all in a senior team, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo ( talk) 10:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is a blatant advert for the company, it cites no notable sources, in fact the only source is that of Companies House showing the company is registered. //Melonite ( talk) 10:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Written totally in universe except for the intro and the controversy. section. Uses nothing but primary sources. Totally incomprehensible to anyone who is not a fan. Ridernyc ( talk) 09:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable physician. Ridernyc ( talk) 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Article can be easily merged with Shakira. Article has very little content. Title is incorrect ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Mayor of a town in the Netherlands. Article makes no other claim of notability. Google news hits in Dutch reveal day-to-day business of the town, upon machine translation. Deprodded by a new user with the edit summary "he's a mayor". Abductive ( talk) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
May as well add them all correctly:
Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Unimportant local film that fails WP:NOTFILM. I have not been able to find any reviews of the film, nor have I seen it discussed on any major websites. Also, the article reads like an advertisement. Another article by the same user, Devotion (2009 film), fails under the same guidelines. – Merqurial ( talk) 07:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Harper's Island. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Non-notable fictional characters from a canceled short-run TV series with no real-world information, likely none available to support their own article. Ejfetters ( talk) 07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Future album without any reliable sources or claims to notability. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of his career. I don't think the GQ and Eagle Eye contributions are enough for WP:PROF #7, and he clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a contribution as well as a hoax by hard-banned user Bambifan101. PMDrive1061 ( talk) 06:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability not proven, no information found to support group existed at all, possible hoax and/or COI SpikeJones ( talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under G11. This was a word for word identical recreation of the previous version, and unfortunately Multixfer's improvements were only cosmetic in nature. lifebaka ++ 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This company is not notable in anyway. A search brings up nothing but press releases or non-notable industry coverage related to Warady and is just a recreated article. TheLastStandOfPie ( talk) 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This seems an appropriate article on which to implement WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds ( talk) 01:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; reads and presents like an essay. The overall tone, and indeed the topic, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Moreover, the article is laden with original research and unverified claims. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. Discounting all the votes by new users, who are clearly being canvassed from somewhere, there is very clearly no chance of this being closed as keep if it were left open for the full seven days J.delanoy gabs adds 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable musical style. Fails WP:NOTE. No GHits or GNEWS associated with style. Article states only one band "is currently playing crabcore." ttonyb1 ( talk) 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
"KEEP" This is the best thing I've ever read and the sources do check out maybe Those who want to delete this don't understand the extremity and importance of this style to its fans 25 June 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.75.150 ( talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, a merger can continue to be discussed at the talk page. Sandstein 06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
It has been suggested that this article fails WP:POVFORK, and WP:Criticism says "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork", as well as "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article.". In addition, the creator was told by an admin NOT to create an article entitled 'Critical views of chiropractic' as it would be a "classic pov-fork". [36] - procedural nomination for Ip 70.71.22.45 -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE and notability doesn't transfer from generation to generation. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Anyone who wishes to request userification may contact me on my talk page. Cool3 ( talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Undrafted quarterback recently joined UFL New York but no substantial coverage], fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy on this one and send it to AFD. The main concerns is the notability of the individual JForget 01:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football player, no substantial coverage except for reports about his transfer from a bigger school to a smaller school, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfy. MBisanz talk 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Submitted for AFD by article's creator as I am not sure if the article qualifies as WP:NOTABLE, but I would like to have it voted by my fellow Wikipedians rather than worry about a possible speedy deletion. Thank you for your attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Nja 247 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This brief article reads like an advert. It's two sources do little to provide evidence of notability, if having your company mentioned in a mainstream newspaper equals notability then my local corner shop could have a wikipedia page. magnius ( talk) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Declining db-spam; article isn't promoting anything, but any article by a brand-new contributor that talks about warez is potentially dangerous, so taking to AfD. Maybe it's fine, but if it's not, we want to delete it sooner than 7 days, so make sure you mention "speedy" if your vote is for speedy deletion. Note that the previous version of this article by the same editor contained code and a link to their myspace page. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability not established through reliable sources. Self-published author. This found through google certainly doesn't establish much notability. [45] Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
( talk) 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is poorly constructed, and no effort has been made to improve it since its creation in December 2008. It has few references, and the ones that do exist don't seem to provide much evidence of notability or importance. magnius ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Content appears to be a copyright violation. Redirected to 2009 Canadian federal budget as a possible search term. Flowerparty☀ 07:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Political propaganda. It is unclear why this fund/program should warrant an article - it's just a part of the budget of the Government of Canada. PK T(alk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus seems broadly in favour of keeping this content in some form - a merge to Joomla or elsewhere should not be discounted, though, and can be decided on the talk page if desired. ~ mazca talk 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Originally speedily deleted, but that deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_29 in favor of a full discussion here. I am personally neutral on whether the article should be deleted or not. Aervanath ( talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion besides the nominator but not enough keep !votes to establish a consensus. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Makes no claims to notability, and a search for sources from Google News show only trivial mentions in USAtoday, or 'puff pieces' written by the company themselves. Has no reliable sources, reads like a HOWTO piece. It is, however, a well-written article - just not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. There is some coverage but only from one source ( The GW Hatchet) and probably not enough; the other sources I can find, either cited in the article or found via Google, are associated with the subject, trivial or appear to fail the reliable sources guideline. snigbrook ( talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I initially thought he would be notable when I saw a number of wikipedias in different languages have an article of him (clarify: More wikipedia articles in different languages doesn't = notability but it would seem to lead to more chances of finding reliable sources). But then I noticed that all except the French wikipedia have deleted it (with one also seeming to be in the deletion process). Calaka ( talk) 05:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The comment "is inexpensive enough and widely available enough to be reviewed in many places" is in itself a statement of notability, provided by the nominator as a reason why it's not notable? Add the refs, weed out the bad refs. If it's "just a product description", but reactions/reviews/criticisms/popularity can be verified, add it. Cleanup, reference, take out any spam. Keeper | 76 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product. Mbinebri talk ← 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a long term orphaned article. It is poorly referenced and there is no demonstration of notability for the term "north wing" in this political sense. Googling shows it used by a few bloggers but not to a great extent. I did not find any RS use of it on the first few pages. There is background material of possible merit here but it duplicates that of Political Compass and I hesitate to suggest a merge of unreferenced material.. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An article about a non-notable author whose two books were self-published via the Lulu.com vanity press operation. Runs afoul of WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo ( talk) 12:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. She has had a pedestrian career working as a weatherperson for local affiliate stations. Nothing notable about her career other than simply doing her job on a daily basis. Article tagged for having no sources since Nov. 2007. Niteshift36 ( talk) 06:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It needs cleanup and referencing, however it's not a directory, it's a list, which by precedent (and argument below), is fine. If it were a "directory" it would have showtimes and scheduling like a movie guide. Keeper | 76 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT an arbitrary list. WP not a place to list a network's lineup. SpikeJones ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not cite any references or evidence of notability. A google search yields few results, certainly nothing that justifies this articles existence. magnius ( talk) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article does not provide any evidence of importance or notability. Article does not provide any references and only two external links, neither of which provide the necessary evidence of the subjects notability. magnius ( talk) 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This is basically a masthead of Time Magazine's political writers, most of whom are not notable via WP:BIO standards. The article never explains why these writers are superior to those at, say, Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report. There doesn't appear to be much, if anything, to merge into the article about Time, hence its appearance here. Pastor Theo ( talk) 13:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability that I can see. AFD instead of CSD in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid ( talk) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]"
I have several full page articles published in monthly National UK Music magazines, Metal Hammer, Kerrang!, incoming band sections and live reviews I have now edited the article to reference these sources. Will this be sufficient to ensure this article is not deleted?
I also plan to add references to the following when I have time: I have album reviews in from publications Rock Sound Big Cheese which I believe adds weight to notability. I believe they have participated in a session on Kerrang Radio, as well as Kings Lynn FM although I need to find a reference to these.
There album is also available in Major record outlets HMV, available on itunes and on websites like Amazon.com External link amazon.co.uk As far as mongolia ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Simply put, orphaned article on a hardware modification that has no notability in third party sources, and a quick online sweep confirms that much. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources found. I have been unable to verify that the band Zinc had a chart single, as it doesn't show up in the ARIA archives, and the Music Network Radio charts are not a reputable chart. There are a lot of names dropped, and a couple claims to notability that keep it just outside A7, but absolutely no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete since no target was suggested for the merge. I don't feel that Pink Floyd is an appropriate target; if someone finds a better target, I will be glad to restore and merge the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to International_Brazilian_Jiu-Jitsu_Federation#Federations. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
While I'm sure they are a fine group of people, the Federation fails WP:ORG. Using the entire name "Florida Federation of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu" (since all the words in it are common enough) yields a total of 35 ghits. Most of them are mentions in forums, blogs, sites related to the org or mirros of wikipedia. No hits on gnews. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Note to Rlendog: The articles you refer to are not under discussion here and would need to be nominated seperately. Sandstein 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is not notable and is part of a recent proliferation of these unnotable rivalry pages. Chidel ( talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
However, if those who are more learned than I seem to think that this article is not appropriate I accept its removal. Perhaps keep the pages seperate or unlinked to the Hewitt or Federer main articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messenger777 ( talk • contribs) 00:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC) reply
GO FORTH IN IGNORANCE! I HAVE LEFT WIKIPEDIA FOR GOOD! TENNISAUTHORITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.44.215 ( talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Entry for self-published crank occult/parapsychology book. Prod declined without comment. I can find some references to it through Google, but only from other crank books & sites. Needs either major rewrite or deletion, I prefer the latter. Hairhorn ( talk) 23:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
There is a comment on the articles discussion page giving my argument, how did you not see it? I'll restate it here:
1) it is not occult or parapsychology, what is your source for this? or is labelling it like this a matter of your opinion?
2) it has ISBN-10 and ISBN-13 numbers, is sold on Amazon and resold on many ebook selling websites, and the author's name gets over a million Google results - clearly many people have read it including Robert Watts the producer of Star Wars and Indiana Jones
3) I don't see how content or publication method are relevant to whether a book desrves a Wikipedia article or not, why is The Satanic Bible allowed an article? Many people have read this book therefore it should have a Wikipedia article
I find your ignoring of the discussion page and the labelling of this book as occult without any source very unprofessional, you have no basis for suggesting deletion of this article and frankly I'm a little offended that an article I put alot of effort into is considered unworthy because of the dislike of the it's content without even having read it.
- Words in sanskrit ( talk) 23:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Most of the keep "votes" fail to establish why it's notable. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
With due respect to the editors who developed this article, I don't think it is notable. It's completely unsourced except for one reference I added, and details completely minor in-universe trivia of the Star Trek franchise. Mostly it seems to be based on passing remarks about fictional countries made by the characters. I've placed a notice on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek, and on the talk page of the creator ( User:Ritchy). YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable psychologist. One self published book, and 3 published by a very small niche publisher. Article created as anti-psychiatry coatrack. Ridernyc ( talk) 22:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Bill (payment). Despite the...bizarre...nomination, this seems like a valid option. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I love you. Stevin speaks ( talk) 22:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Keeper | 76 02:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is unencyclopedic, since it consists entirely of in-universe plot summary. I assume the Starcraft Wiki already has this information. I think it qualifies as a list of minutia. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 22:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Not even sure what this article is trying to be. It looks like it started out being some sort of sub-genre of folk music. It then starts talking about Balkan music. Then there is a huge section on Muzika Mizrahit. Then a really long list of artists divided by country. The only section that has any sources is the Muzika Mizrahit which never mentions the term "pop folk" and already is covered in Mizrahi music Many of these regional forms of music already have there own articles for Laïka. Ridernyc ( talk) 12:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Just look at all those performers from all around the world.-- The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. While a reasonable argument can be made that some sort of useful page could be created here, consensus seems to hold that this particular page is not it. It appears to be unsalvageable promotional text, and any encyclopedic article created here would be unlikely to use any part of it. ~ mazca talk 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This page is a neologism I'm not familiar with, and neither is Google apparently. ODAT = One Deal At a Time. Brief history of which website coined the term, and then the entire article is filled with links to shopping sites. I cleaned up a little, and then realized it doesn't make sense. I would have suggested G-11, but it isn't exactly spam, it's more like a link directory, so I'm bringing it here. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff ( talk) 01:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Serious ODAT Edit required==
I agree with spaceman7. It is a disappointing page that should be deleted. I friend has contacted me from Backcountry.com and asked me for help. I believe that an intern at backcountry.com created the page as an honest effort to conform to Wikipedia guidelines while under the direction of backcountry.com employees who were sincere about making a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do to help? Should the user who created the page delete it ans ask a wikipedia editor for help? -- Petebertine ( talk) 23:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) reply
- MaritFischer 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Hi, Spaceman7 and Pete. Spaceman7, for introduction's sake, I am the Communications Manager at Backcountry.com.
I am truly sorry that the page has been deemed disappointing. Pete is correct, the intern that he mentioned, username Cmw0830, spent hours on this entry with an honest desire to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. She was a very diligent student, concerned with the rules, and meticulous in her effort to find sources and create links to outside sites wherever possible, (including to other ODAT sites that are completely unrelated in any way to Backcountry.com). Before she posted the entry, we did run it by Pete for his thoughts. We are all Wikipedia novices, and the rules really do run quite deep. We did not want to post something that would be inappropriate. Unfortunately, we obviously did not meet standards. Please accept our humble apology.
The term ODAT is relatively new (2006), and it was, in fact, coined by Dustin Robertson, the CMO of Backcountry.com, at the creation of SteepandCheap.com. It is also a business model for online sales on online stores, the links to which we, perhaps wrongly, thought a good idea to share. Our goal was to be as "encyclopedic" as possible (despite the recency of the coined term and the lack of tomes of external references aside from trade and consumer magazine articles and blog mentions), including the genesis of the acronym and the evolution of the business model. It seems to me, in reading the complaints against the page, that because the acronym is retail related, the information is not acceptable. I welcome any clarification on this point, as obviously, we are not experts here.
Out of curiosity, I checked the entry for BOGO, another marketing-related retail acronym. I've always wondered where this term originated. Interesting that when I Googled the term to find the origination, (since that information was not on Wikipedia), I found many more people like me who wanted to know, but no answers. It also seemed that a lot of them turned to Wikipedia for that exact information to no avail. Perhaps there is a non-saleslike way to relay this information about ODAT that would meet the community's standards? I welcome suggestions.
I have no emotional attachment to the entry as it appeared originally, or as it is now. If the edited version works for you and other members of the community, I would suggest that we leave it up and leave it at that. I would characterize this edited version as a stub, however. It would be a shame, and ironic, for it to be deleted now because it now is lacking enough information. If that is the consensus, however, we totally understand and we accept the decision.
One more thing. I am not sure why Cmw0830's page was deleted. Perhaps because of inactivity? That breaks my heart. She is a great girl, who worked really hard to do what she was advised as the "right thing" in terms of communicating on Wikipedia. She also just graduated from college and has been in Africa for two months on a service project, a great reason for not replying to comments or even visiting her page. I would hate for her to blacklisted for any reason, since she really was only trying to do good work and be of service.
The bottom line, Spaceman7, is we are totally willing to work with you or anyone else to make small edits to or change the very basic current (edited) entry for ODAT to allow for it to stay up. If that is not possible, we have no problem taking the post down. I just ask that you please recognize a willingness to learn and a desire to present valid information, and refrain from taking any further action on Wikipedia against Backcountry.com as a whole.
Thank you.
- MaritFischer 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Notability is not inherited; and no sources were found to demonstrate any notability of his own. ~ mazca talk 22:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Barely any content and no prospect for more. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
DeleteReason. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Zbar is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine Droliver ( talk) 20:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason Psikxas ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Steinbrech is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategies Droliver ( talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. NonNotable non notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Herman is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver ( talk) 20:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non Notable. No disrespect intended, but Dr. Gentile is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. The bloat of wikipedia entries among my speciality seems to be more vanity entries or part of marketing strategies Droliver ( talk) 20:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Keepers point to his contribution to a frequently cited paper as evidence of notability, but there appears to be no reliable coverage about this guy, necessary for writing a biography. Flowerparty☀ 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Deletenon notable No disrespect intended, but Dr. Edwards is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine Droliver ( talk) 19:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable Droliver ( talk) 19:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) No disrespect intended, but Dr. Antell is not a particular noteworthy practicioner in our field. Criteria for inclusion as a medical professional should be reserved for those with extraordinary career accomplishments, notable academic or professional standing, or other claims of celebrity status or accomplishment outside the field of medicine. Droliver ( talk) 19:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable author, has 3 books published by vanity presses. the single reference given in the article is to a photo caption of her appearing in a fashion show LuvGoldStar ( talk) 18:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Creative professionals Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. * The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. * The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. * The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
We can try to make up all kinds of reasons to declare someone who is not notable (relationship with a famous person, having a children's book translated from Dutch to another language) but they are either notable or not. An occasional waiver of the notability guidelines is fine but it shouldn't become routine or they become meaningless. Drawn Some ( talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G3. In addition, ManiacalManatee ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, as his only contributions have been to this article and the current deletion discussion. + An gr 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This looks like a hoax, and a previous incarnation of it was speedily deleted under the G3 criterion because of it. The article creator says it is not a hoax; however, I have not been able to find anything on the sole reference in Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon.com, or WorldCat. I think someone is probably just playing with us. Instead of re-deleting speedily this time, I bring it to AfD to seek consensus. Lady of Shalott 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Steel Panther. Flowerparty☀ 00:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
NN album, no significant charting history that I can find. roux 17:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Unanimously agreed to not meet the notability guidelines at this time. ~ mazca talk 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Author doesn't appear to be notable. roux 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The author's article was also deleted for a similarly-terminal complete lack of notability. With no merge target and no independent sources, the consensus is clearly to delete this too. ~ mazca talk 22:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Doesn't appear to be notable in any way. roux 17:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. لenna vecia 17:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is self promoting of someones plans, does not exactly following WP policies. //Melonite ( talk) 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Whether or not Pravda is reliable, insufficient sources have been presented about this blogger to establish notability, as several !voters indicated. Cool3 ( talk) 20:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Not WP:Notable. No reliable sources. Pravda is far from a reliable source. Borock ( talk) 16:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Nerdseeksblonde ( talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was G4 and salt by Golbez, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Recreated YET AGAIN as per last nominations. TheLastStandOfPie ( talk) 16:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Tagged for RS sources (ha ha, I'm so funny) since November 2007, but the only sources are from newsgroups and other unreliable sources. I think it's time for this to be listed at the AFD deletion list of articles that are to be deleted. Only sources that turned up in the last AFD were New Scientist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No real notability asserted. Sources are allmusic directory listings and trivial mentions. Deprodded with assertation that he's released several albums, but none of them are major. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Move to Beam Me Up Scotty (mixtape). No consensus to delete. Flowerparty☀ 07:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Mixtape with very little media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek ( talk) 14:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Can be re-created once sufficient info is found and added. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is duplicate of Hamburger, with so limited differentiation between European/Australian/Canadian/etc and American burgers that page split is unnecessary. Content resides in original article, so no need for merge. SpikeJones ( talk) 14:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D. Flowerparty☀ 00:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable character that could easily be merged into the Jim Henson's Muppet*Vision 3D article. magnius ( talk) 14:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:AUTHOR (lacks recognition and wide citation by peers, recognized work or body of work, no indication of some new concept or theory), WP:PROFESSOR (No indication of any significant awards or significant society elections. There is some impact outside of academia with his fiction book but not what I'd call significant.), and WP:BIO (lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources). Google Scholar search brings up only 2 citations not authored by Sommer. Google news brings up a single hit, surprisingly low for an author. Not finding many reviews for the fiction book either. RadioFan ( talk) 13:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List of parishes of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Honolulu. Content will still be in the page histories if anyone wants to preform a merger. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
( View AfD)
All of these church articles are microstubs with no sources and altogether without indications of notability. I would suggest a merge for these articles to the diocese article, but without any sources on any of these, there's nothing to merge. Nyttend ( talk) 13:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy keep per WP:IAR. The only issue here is copyright and the original G12 tagger says that's no longer a problem. This is almost the same as a withdrawn nomination. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 18:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Nominator is creator of the page. Page was tagged for copyright violations at 23:55, 19 June 2009. Page rewritten and edited to ensure compliance. However the speedy delete tag remains. Request for assistance at WP:ANI produced no response or result whatever, although User:Gwen Gale questioned the page in re WP:BIO. So page is submitted for review re both copyright compliance and notability as per "CSD section (A7) cited and it states that the criterion of importance (not even notability) "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." Respectfully submitted, Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 13:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:SYNTH, there may be discussion of individual 8-sided scoreboards, but no independent sources cover the topic as a whole Citius Altius ( talk) 13:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 13:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to be hoax or non-notable, as the references are fake and I am unable to find reliable sources. One book cited as a source doesn't seem to exist, and of those that do exist there is at least one – Renegade: The Lives and Tales of Mark E. Smith – in which Feinbaum is not mentioned. snigbrook ( talk) 12:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. and rename to ACO Intercontinental Trophy, or somesuch. Keeper | 76 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is entirely speculative. The two news sources mention that an "Intercontinental Trophy" will be held next year, but that it will simply use existing races from the American Le Mans Series, Le Mans Series, and Asian Le Mans Series. The entire existance of a World Le Mans Series is speculated only by the author based on the fact that a trademark for "World Le Mans Series" exists, but there is no evidence of an actual series. IIIVIX ( Talk) 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC) reply
@NaBUru: My mistake earlier: it needs to be ACO Intercontinental Trophy, since that is the title used in the sources. I've removed a couple of things that are OR from the article, but I'd be content with that, yes. 4u1e ( talk) 08:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested WP:PROD. The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (books), which says a book must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This book has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and the article should therefore be deleted. It also fails WP:CRYSTAL because multiple independent sources must have provided strong evidence that the book will be published. TheLeft orium 12:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An article on a non notable self published book. Already contested at prod. A search on author and tile returns 19 unique GHits, including Wikipedia. None of these are in depth or reliable, hence notability cannot be established. Nuttah ( talk) 12:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. 2 deletes, 3 keeps, no strong evidence either way thus overall no consensus Nja 247 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Mostly promotion (created by public relations company of which Biggs is a client). His most notable achievement seems to be winning a category in Wildlife photographer of the year. All winning, runner up and highly commended images in this competition are displayed in the Natural History Museum. Considering that only three of the overall winners of the 45 competitions have Wikipedia articles, this hardly makes the photographers of all of these noteworthy enough to have a wikipedia page. Similarly, having images used in an advertising campaign is not sufficiently notable. God Emperor ( talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. A few interviews on TV and contributions to collective books are a staple for a schloar. Delated of fr: by speedy deletion. Bokken | 木刀 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No signs of notability. This search yielded some unreliable sources, 38 of which are from Wikipedia and its mirrors. Alexius08 ( talk) 10:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Reliable sources for this person include Evelyn Rothwell's notes for this composer's Trio for oboe in C major, when she edited it in the 1960s; the entry for "Suck, Charles J." in The New Grove dictionary of music and musicians, which is on page 162 in the 1954 edition; and Bruce Haynes' Music for oboe, 1650-1800: a bibliography, which lists Suck's other trios (2 for oboe, 2 for flute, and 2 for violin, in total) in Suck's entry on page 313. Uncle G ( talk) 13:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested WP:PROD, article about a young footballer with no appearances at all in a senior team, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo ( talk) 10:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is a blatant advert for the company, it cites no notable sources, in fact the only source is that of Companies House showing the company is registered. //Melonite ( talk) 10:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Written totally in universe except for the intro and the controversy. section. Uses nothing but primary sources. Totally incomprehensible to anyone who is not a fan. Ridernyc ( talk) 09:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 12:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable physician. Ridernyc ( talk) 09:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Article can be easily merged with Shakira. Article has very little content. Title is incorrect ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 09:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 08:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Mayor of a town in the Netherlands. Article makes no other claim of notability. Google news hits in Dutch reveal day-to-day business of the town, upon machine translation. Deprodded by a new user with the edit summary "he's a mayor". Abductive ( talk) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
May as well add them all correctly:
Darrenhusted ( talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Unimportant local film that fails WP:NOTFILM. I have not been able to find any reviews of the film, nor have I seen it discussed on any major websites. Also, the article reads like an advertisement. Another article by the same user, Devotion (2009 film), fails under the same guidelines. – Merqurial ( talk) 07:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Harper's Island. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Non-notable fictional characters from a canceled short-run TV series with no real-world information, likely none available to support their own article. Ejfetters ( talk) 07:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Future album without any reliable sources or claims to notability. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Disputed PROD. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 06:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of his career. I don't think the GQ and Eagle Eye contributions are enough for WP:PROF #7, and he clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedily deleted as a contribution as well as a hoax by hard-banned user Bambifan101. PMDrive1061 ( talk) 06:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability not proven, no information found to support group existed at all, possible hoax and/or COI SpikeJones ( talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under G11. This was a word for word identical recreation of the previous version, and unfortunately Multixfer's improvements were only cosmetic in nature. lifebaka ++ 13:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This company is not notable in anyway. A search brings up nothing but press releases or non-notable industry coverage related to Warady and is just a recreated article. TheLastStandOfPie ( talk) 03:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This seems an appropriate article on which to implement WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds ( talk) 01:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod; reads and presents like an essay. The overall tone, and indeed the topic, is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Moreover, the article is laden with original research and unverified claims. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. Discounting all the votes by new users, who are clearly being canvassed from somewhere, there is very clearly no chance of this being closed as keep if it were left open for the full seven days J.delanoy gabs adds 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Non-notable musical style. Fails WP:NOTE. No GHits or GNEWS associated with style. Article states only one band "is currently playing crabcore." ttonyb1 ( talk) 02:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
"KEEP" This is the best thing I've ever read and the sources do check out maybe Those who want to delete this don't understand the extremity and importance of this style to its fans 25 June 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.75.150 ( talk • contribs)
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, a merger can continue to be discussed at the talk page. Sandstein 06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
It has been suggested that this article fails WP:POVFORK, and WP:Criticism says "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork", as well as "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article.". In addition, the creator was told by an admin NOT to create an article entitled 'Critical views of chiropractic' as it would be a "classic pov-fork". [36] - procedural nomination for Ip 70.71.22.45 -- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE and notability doesn't transfer from generation to generation. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Anyone who wishes to request userification may contact me on my talk page. Cool3 ( talk) 19:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Undrafted quarterback recently joined UFL New York but no substantial coverage], fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No significant coverage, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy on this one and send it to AFD. The main concerns is the notability of the individual JForget 01:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable football player, no substantial coverage except for reports about his transfer from a bigger school to a smaller school, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ( c| s) 01:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Userfy. MBisanz talk 20:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Submitted for AFD by article's creator as I am not sure if the article qualifies as WP:NOTABLE, but I would like to have it voted by my fellow Wikipedians rather than worry about a possible speedy deletion. Thank you for your attention. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Nja 247 12:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This brief article reads like an advert. It's two sources do little to provide evidence of notability, if having your company mentioned in a mainstream newspaper equals notability then my local corner shop could have a wikipedia page. magnius ( talk) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Declining db-spam; article isn't promoting anything, but any article by a brand-new contributor that talks about warez is potentially dangerous, so taking to AfD. Maybe it's fine, but if it's not, we want to delete it sooner than 7 days, so make sure you mention "speedy" if your vote is for speedy deletion. Note that the previous version of this article by the same editor contained code and a link to their myspace page. - Dank ( push to talk) 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. The subject does not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability not established through reliable sources. Self-published author. This found through google certainly doesn't establish much notability. [45] Omarcheeseboro ( talk) 20:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
( talk) 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is poorly constructed, and no effort has been made to improve it since its creation in December 2008. It has few references, and the ones that do exist don't seem to provide much evidence of notability or importance. magnius ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No sources, contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Content appears to be a copyright violation. Redirected to 2009 Canadian federal budget as a possible search term. Flowerparty☀ 07:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Political propaganda. It is unclear why this fund/program should warrant an article - it's just a part of the budget of the Government of Canada. PK T(alk) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus seems broadly in favour of keeping this content in some form - a merge to Joomla or elsewhere should not be discounted, though, and can be decided on the talk page if desired. ~ mazca talk 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Originally speedily deleted, but that deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_29 in favor of a full discussion here. I am personally neutral on whether the article should be deleted or not. Aervanath ( talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion besides the nominator but not enough keep !votes to establish a consensus. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Makes no claims to notability, and a search for sources from Google News show only trivial mentions in USAtoday, or 'puff pieces' written by the company themselves. Has no reliable sources, reads like a HOWTO piece. It is, however, a well-written article - just not notable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 17:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nja 247 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. There is some coverage but only from one source ( The GW Hatchet) and probably not enough; the other sources I can find, either cited in the article or found via Google, are associated with the subject, trivial or appear to fail the reliable sources guideline. snigbrook ( talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Comment: I initially thought he would be notable when I saw a number of wikipedias in different languages have an article of him (clarify: More wikipedia articles in different languages doesn't = notability but it would seem to lead to more chances of finding reliable sources). But then I noticed that all except the French wikipedia have deleted it (with one also seeming to be in the deletion process). Calaka ( talk) 05:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The comment "is inexpensive enough and widely available enough to be reviewed in many places" is in itself a statement of notability, provided by the nominator as a reason why it's not notable? Add the refs, weed out the bad refs. If it's "just a product description", but reactions/reviews/criticisms/popularity can be verified, add it. Cleanup, reference, take out any spam. Keeper | 76 03:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable product. Mbinebri talk ← 13:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 02:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a long term orphaned article. It is poorly referenced and there is no demonstration of notability for the term "north wing" in this political sense. Googling shows it used by a few bloggers but not to a great extent. I did not find any RS use of it on the first few pages. There is background material of possible merit here but it duplicates that of Political Compass and I hesitate to suggest a merge of unreferenced material.. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
An article about a non-notable author whose two books were self-published via the Lulu.com vanity press operation. Runs afoul of WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo ( talk) 12:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N. She has had a pedestrian career working as a weatherperson for local affiliate stations. Nothing notable about her career other than simply doing her job on a daily basis. Article tagged for having no sources since Nov. 2007. Niteshift36 ( talk) 06:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. It needs cleanup and referencing, however it's not a directory, it's a list, which by precedent (and argument below), is fine. If it were a "directory" it would have showtimes and scheduling like a movie guide. Keeper | 76 03:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NOT an arbitrary list. WP not a place to list a network's lineup. SpikeJones ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Does not cite any references or evidence of notability. A google search yields few results, certainly nothing that justifies this articles existence. magnius ( talk) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This article does not provide any evidence of importance or notability. Article does not provide any references and only two external links, neither of which provide the necessary evidence of the subjects notability. magnius ( talk) 14:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 03:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
This is basically a masthead of Time Magazine's political writers, most of whom are not notable via WP:BIO standards. The article never explains why these writers are superior to those at, say, Newsweek or U.S. News & World Report. There doesn't appear to be much, if anything, to merge into the article about Time, hence its appearance here. Pastor Theo ( talk) 13:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability that I can see. AFD instead of CSD in case I am missing something. TexasAndroid ( talk) 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1]"
I have several full page articles published in monthly National UK Music magazines, Metal Hammer, Kerrang!, incoming band sections and live reviews I have now edited the article to reference these sources. Will this be sufficient to ensure this article is not deleted?
I also plan to add references to the following when I have time: I have album reviews in from publications Rock Sound Big Cheese which I believe adds weight to notability. I believe they have participated in a session on Kerrang Radio, as well as Kings Lynn FM although I need to find a reference to these.
There album is also available in Major record outlets HMV, available on itunes and on websites like Amazon.com External link amazon.co.uk As far as mongolia ( talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Simply put, orphaned article on a hardware modification that has no notability in third party sources, and a quick online sweep confirms that much. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
No reliable sources found. I have been unable to verify that the band Zinc had a chart single, as it doesn't show up in the ARIA archives, and the Music Network Radio charts are not a reputable chart. There are a lot of names dropped, and a couple claims to notability that keep it just outside A7, but absolutely no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete since no target was suggested for the merge. I don't feel that Pink Floyd is an appropriate target; if someone finds a better target, I will be glad to restore and merge the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 08:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC) reply