The result was speedy delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unneccesary split of article, Information already covered in October 26 ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Marasmusine ( talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Unsourced essay. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wperdue ( talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep . The concensus appears to be that the Wired article is enough to carry notability. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability still not established with reliable sources. ZoeL ( talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is a list of wedding terms, however, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a dictionary. Furthermore, there is no clear consensus on what a "wedding term" is. TN X Man 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined A1 speedy. This article merely states that a "commercial replacement" is what takes the place of a commercial break on some channels (duh!) but gives no example of what such a replacement could consist of, hence my tagging. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence (beyond the nominator) for requested deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable term. Google returns few hits, most of them unrelated. References inserted in deprodding shed very little new light. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, aside from the Berne incident and two recent referenda (which didn't really impact relations as such), there isn't much to see. Sure, there've been the usual visits (note the extremely warm handshake exchanged between the Romanian and the Swiss Presidents), but there's nothing special about those (at least nothing encyclopedic, as opposed to newsworthy), and there's trade - but perhaps half a billion dollars' worth, in two economies that are hundreds of billions of dollars in size. To be precise, 0.6% of Romanian exports go to Switzerland, and 0.9% of imports come from there. Oh, and this brand of milk was started by a Swiss - but let's not degenerate into trivia. The point is, this relationship is nothing sort of mundane, and the lack of independent in-depth sources means we should delete. If there's really interest in linking the Berne incident with the referenda, we could always create a Category: Romania–Switzerland relations for that. Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Possible neologism based on a single allmusic article, lots of original research here neon white talk 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable distribution; no third-party sources LucAndrea ( talk) 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A discussion as to whether or not to merge may be opened on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The information was removed from Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. and the building itself doesn't meet notability requirements. Articles such as Embassy of Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. and Thomas T. Gaff House combine the architectural, historical, and diplomatic information into one article. APK straight up now tell me 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated without resulting in a consensus. Fansite; article is entirely sourced from its subject; I've seen nothing that proves that it or its founders are notable or authoritive in any way. Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Evenfiel ( talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hatted extended wrangling
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I'll let the closer decide which of us has the stronger argument. :)— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Forget it. I'll just do my own summary, as if this AFD needs to get further degenerated into irrelevant discussion.
If any admin wishes to strike off, rollback or otherwise hide this entire exchange between S Marshall and myself, please do so. -- Bardin ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply |
I've amended my side of the table as shown below:
S Marshall's position | Bardin's position |
---|---|
This nomination boils down to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. | The only previous nomination was made over a year ago by a different nominator so it is not a case of repeated listing till it gets deleted. We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow. |
This nomination should be at DRV rather than AfD because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments or evidence not considered in the the last AFD. | Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year. |
Repeated nominations are forumshopping | The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping. |
The nominator advances no new arguments and is simply hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different. | It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago. |
It doesn't matter whether it was an hour ago, a week ago, a year ago or a century ago. There still are no new arguments here we haven't already considered at the previous closure. | Consensus can change because the opinions of editors on the same subject/policies/guidelines can change, especially in a period of over one year. |
— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Duplication of Template:Retired Pricing Games. Article contains nothing more than a list of retired games. Sottolacqua ( talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Duplication of information found within Template:Active Pricing Games. Includes no additional detail about pricing games that isn't already discussed within the show's main article Sottolacqua ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per consensus and no requests for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason: gives no substantial information other than on of hundreds qigong movements. Should be mentionned in the main article about qigong with its impact on qigong movement. No article only for Zhong Gong Swissk9 ( talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hello, I am the user behind the ip 173.66.142.225. My PROD of this article was removed as vandalism. I would like to nominate this article because it has insufficient sources to indicate that this subject passes WP:WEB and there has been insufficient coverage of this to indicate that it is notable. I would also like to note that this article was created by a single purpose account and another user who has been spam username blocked. Myownusername ( talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
—
Myownusername (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding
unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
reply
—
173.66.142.225 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding
unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
reply
* Delete Does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources as required by
WP:N.
ukexpat (
talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedily deleted as a CSD G3 blatant hoax. Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be about a location that doesn't exist; in fact, a simple Google search of the word "ekafstan" comes up with zero hits, not even a possible misspelling. And following the references in the article lead to a site that really isn't about anything (possibly a business?). It also doesn't help that the creator's username happens to be Ekafstan. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The result was Keep as per consensus and no deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete because it fails WP:BIO and lacks sources. This does not preclude mention of his name in other articles if appropriate. Bejnar ( talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The book has a 5 star rating, with 105 reviews. This is almost unheard of, once a book has 30+ reviews. (Usually at least a few readers see fit to pan most books, and this knocks ratings down to 4 or 4.5 stars.)
Let's add some references and improve this article. The subject is definitely notable. With so many of his books in print, sources should not be too difficult to excavate. Trasel ( talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Minor music festival, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden related to the music label. J Milburn ( talk) 11:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep per ChildOfMidnight, but the article needs to be improved significantly. Tim meh ! 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N - no independent sources confirm any sort of a meaningful bilateral relationship. The presence of embassies is already recorded at List of diplomatic missions of Slovenia and List of diplomatic missions of Romania; their membership in NATO at Members of NATO and of the EU at Member State of the European Union. Yes, Sandoz has invested in Romania, but note that its investment is trivial enough not to have been mentioned in the Sandoz article (where it could easily be mentioned, if relevant); and yes, a Slovenian prime minister once spent two days in Romania, but these either fail the "substantial" or the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. There's certainly not enough of a relationship that we could write about which goes much beyond the trivial. Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. CSD G3. Silly, blatant hoax. Common sense dictates that we delete this article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Another offering from Planet Hoax. A Google search show that this term is in use, but in a joking and not a scientific way. Google Scholar finds nothing, and references such as this make clear that the term has no scientific usage, and that all the article's anatomical stuff about "inferior to the lateral fissure and caudal to the central sulcus" is nonsense. The only reference cited is a more or less empty personal website. Delete. JohnCD ( talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFF. No indication that principal photography has commenced. There was initial talk of the film being shot in 2007 but the no development since then on. Leave Sleaves 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Creator of page in question challenging a WP:PROD in favor of a vote by fellow editors. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or indiscriminate collection of information. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Opening sentence of the article: "Speculation has begun to take shape over potential nominations." Case closed. Keep verifiable speculation on potential nominees' biographical articles until such time a nomination is actually made. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Speculation-based. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Although I do not believe the article breaks any guideline or policy I am concerned that the ship has no notability outside the context of its hijacking and recapture. Since that is covered in its own article, September 16, 2008 incident off Somalia, I do not believe a separate article for the ship is warranted. Unlike many other ships hijacked by Somali pirates, which have their own articles, this boat is a small private yacht that takes about 2 people. I would like to refer to a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanit (yacht). Similar type of boat, same claim to notability, and with an article already covering what the boat was notable for. The result of that AFD concluded that the ship was not notable enough for its own article (it was the process of merging that led me to the Carré d'As IV article). Plus, the information on the article is a duplication of information found on the action article, so the ship article offers nothing new that the action article doesn't. Cordovao ( talk) 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be original research. It originally had a {{ prod}} tag, but the creator removed it without actually improving the article (s/he explained the reasoning on the talk page, but it appears s/he doesn't understand WP:N). Google came up with no sources that "flambish" is related to the word "flam" or that it is a word at all, even in Norwegian. And when I Googled "flambish" and "flam" together, it came back with a single hit, which doesn't even mention the two words in the same context. In addition, the two apparent references in the article link to the same page, which doesn't mention "flambish" at all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article concerns what appears to be a non notable rock band that lasted less than a year, having merely toured a few clubs. No reference to any records or albums released or even a record contract with a notable (or any) record label. HJMitchell You rang? 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Speedy closing this. This article is totally unsourced, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings surrounding a controversial issue. There is no need to keep this open. PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Although there may be some merit to this article, it's pretty much a non-notable essay. In addition, a Google search comes back with only eight hits, all of which are from either blogs or Yahoo! Answers. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about non-notable software, with no reliable sources provided and none found. Only info I could find was mirrored download sites.
TN
X
Man 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Hi! Thank you for helping me improving. I added the reason that I believe makes this editor noticeable: it was the first editor with visual linking and visual editing (I am a longtime fan and I use it from the very beginning, and nothing else was available at that time. Unfortunately it was born in Italy, where there is not Venture Capital or so... It's always the same story - maybe you know that the telephone was invented by the Italian Meucci, who did not have the money... then Bell with $ $ started the business... ). -- Zioziozio ( talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC) — Zioziozio ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Hum I contest so. As for the information and new references that Zioziozio recently added, it is historically the first visual web editor, at least the only one with verifiable information, within the Politecnico di Torino archives and ED-Media archives. I propose to keep the article and to remove the external links that could be promo. -- Tutankamoon ( talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Tutankamoon ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hoax. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. One ( talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
any useful information should be in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of notable relations otherwise. LibStar ( talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination with no notable relations. non resident embassies. Even the Serbian govt says Economic cooperation between the two countries is insufficiently developed! LibStar ( talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable private school. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies. even the NZ govt describes this relationship as warm and based on our islands status! [72] LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
nn website. Losr2300 ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by User:Closedmouth per WP:CSD#G4 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Brianga ( talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article for deletion / PROUD actually contains several third party references including Whatsonstage, QX Magazine, The Stage and even links to direct PROUD references already cited on Wikipedia. The article was originally deleted on the grounds that there was not enough third party citation. Now that the article has been revised with the said citations I am curious what grounds the article is NOW being considered for deletion?
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Basically fails WP:MUSIC. There is a vague claim to notability (described as "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal" by Rockdetector) but that's nowhere near enough. One of their albums was re-released by the borderline notable Drakkar, but mostly their material is released through Propaganda which is a) definitely non-notable, and b) owned by the band. No significant third-party coverage; the only sources I could see were not reliable and hosted by the Propaganda website or another label that has released their records. Article has also been heavily edited by single purpose users that, whilst I'm assuming good faith, I expect to comment here. Happy to retract nom if non-trivial sources found, for instance, in Russian (a real possibility, though I tragically cannot read Russian). Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Lucifugum released 2 albums on major labels (Drakkar and Adipocere/Oaken Shield) and 2 albums on BlackMetal.Com, big indie label with many years history and many releases: http://www.blackmetal.com Resume: 4 albums on labels which correspond respective Wikipedia rules. Lucifugum article is in law. PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELITIION NOTE. p.s. If you're disagree with this: "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal", you can simply remove these words, but NOT the whole article. Lucifugum is a very notable band with many years history and many albums. -- Black pauk1488 ( talk) 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— Black pauk1488 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Hi, guys! I've made some changes on Lucifugum page. I deleted bio and emotions (cult and bla-bla-bla). There is just line-up and discography there. Just official data. Line-up everybody can see on official releases. These releases everybody can find/buy in many distros all over the world. -- Black pauk1488 ( talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Black pauk1488 ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is in breach of WP:POVFORK, because it discusses one aspect of Estonia-Russia relations without providing any context or contrasting views. It is also in breach of WP:SYNTH: the article puts different events under the title "Russian influence operations in Estonia," although there is no evidence that the events are part of any such "influence operations." Third, I'd like to point out that there are no similar articles in Wikipedia; there is no American influence operations in Europe or American influence operations in (name your country). Speculating whether this or that event is actually part of "influence operations" by another country is a popular subject in political journals. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a journal. It should not have articles about pure political speculation. Offliner ( talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this article as I don't believe that Rex is notable for anything other than having been one of the longest surviving WWI vets, now he has passed away, surely he is no longer notable for this? I realise that nominating a recently deceased man may seem a little cold, but even his volunteer work, while commendable, is hardly notable. Fol de rol troll ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to -cide. Stifle ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Page is a list of words ending in -cide. Apart from the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary, the only references are the main page of Wikipedia and a website called fun-with-words. PROD tag was removed on the basis that the creator thought that the page should be moved to a different name (I am not sure about the reasoning behind that either). God Emperor ( talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Adding the following article, which is an identical copy of "-cides", to the discussion.
-- bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article previously deleted. Basically nominating for the same reasons as the "melodic black metal" article that was recently deleted. The word "brutal" is frequently used as a descriptor in death metal, as a swift Google will amply demonstrate. However, there are no reliable sources at all to suggest that "brutal death metal" exists as a separate and distinct subgenre. The Purcell cite that was used in the introduction didn't back up the claims being made by the article, and what remains is purely OR synthesis. The most you can say about this supposed subgenre genre is that it is death metal which some consider quite "brutal", which is crap even as a dicdef. There's nothing worth merging either, as once you remove the OR, all you're left with is a POV, unsourced list of bands. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This YouTube-based cartoon short is supposedly very popular, according to the article. Yet Google searches fail to confirm this claim. The article does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo ( talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-Hang on, but how come you guys consider it acceptable to have a whole article on EVERY Simpsons or south park episode, despite the fact that some of them may not have 30,000,000 views? Or the stub on the Prime Minster of Lichtenstien, Klaus Tshutscher, despite the fact that 30,000,000 people cannot have heard of him? And anyway, why is it that, while harmless cartoons like Pokemon or Charlie the Unicorn get their articles deleted, more obscene articles- such as "Penis"- are hundreds if not thousands of words long
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable high school football team. No references support notability. The following similar article is also part of this nomination:
The result was keep. Wizardman 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's instead a propoganda tool (and wikipedia is not for advertisement), giving a list solely of people who uphold the fringe minority side of the debate, giving it undue weight. Furthermore, each entry is given a quotes advocating the fringe point of view, making the POV and advocacy issues even worse.
I can see no encyclopedic purpose; instead, it serves as a propoganda device. These lists are common practice of fringe views, but normally, we cover the more notable lists hosted off-wikipedia in an encyclopedic manner (e.g. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism) instead of hosting such lists ourselves.
This may be appropriate fodder for a category, but this list is fatally flawed, and must be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. No charted single or album. No indication of national or international tour. ttonyb1 ( talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Possible copyvio of http://hubpages . com/hub/female-apartheid-south-african-painter--------HELEN-ANNE-PETRIE <-this link (spaces added as link is blacklisted). I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion as that link's FAQ also states Do I own a topic? HubPages does not assign ownership of a specific topic to a Hubber. Anyone is free to write on any topic they like. However, by creating a high number of Hubs filled with original, useful content, you will boost your HubPages status and you may become recognized in the community as an expert. so it might not be a copyvio. I'd also like to nominate Petrie, helen anne for deletion as a redirect to Helen Anne Petrie. A v N 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Assault. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ideally should be CSD-ed as un-encyclopedic. Should be deleted, or redirected to Vehicular homicide. A v N 10:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article which makes heavy weather of a result which is basically a one line application of Pythagoras. Also we tend not to have articles which are proof. Salix ( talk): 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies, no evidence of notable relations. LibStar ( talk) 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies. even the Georgia govt describes a minor relationship with minor trade and no bilateral agreements. [81] LibStar ( talk) 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I am not entirely convinced that this "professional skateboarder" is notable enough in terms of Wikipedia coverage. Recommending deletion for now. JBsupreme ( talk) 06:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of [82] -- WP:CSD#G12 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Copypaste of a forum post
Greedyhalibut ( talk) 05:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete . Redirect created at Geno Dome. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy. Original nominator's rationale was, "No need to create a page detailing one out of dozens of locations in the game- no other locations have articles." SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about an apparently non-notable television writer as defined by the inclusion criteria at WP:N and WP:BIO. The only information on this person is short resume-style entries at websites like TV.com and IMDB. There does not appear to be any substantive, indepenednt, reliable sources out in the world about this person. Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article seems to completely fail WP:N and WP:BIO inclusion criteria. I see no indication of independent coverage here. This article also seems a likely WP:AUTOBIO violation. It is basically a resume for a motivational speaker, and there does not appear to be much here to hang an article on. Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Football rankings for Ohio high schools for 2008 - not notable. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq ( talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt this is a notable topic. However, it's also a high school paper in its present form, not an encyclopedia article. It's been sitting around now for the better part of a year, and does us no credit. When someone's ready to start anew, great, but for now, let's get rid of this essay, which no amount of editing will really "improve" into a fully-developed article. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This may have been meant to be an article on a professional wrestler with a lower-level league, but it appears that the article's creator never bothered to complete it. I tried to research material to fill in the piece, but nothing was located that met WP:RS standards (there isn't even anything on Google for Mr. Green or his "Green Wrestling Family"). A speedy delete tag was brushed aside by a non-admin, so the article is brought here. Pastor Theo ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G2) by Canterbury Tail, Non-admin closing to clean up closure by User:Gordonrox24. Deor ( talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article already exists at Fort Benning. No need for this article. gordonrox24 ( talk) 02:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As it stands, the article does not assert notability. If someone wants to rewrite it and add sources, they are welcome to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. Looks like product placement to me. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is about a car dealership company that does not seem to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out at either WP:N or WP:CORP. There is a single tenuous claim to notability about being named to some list of "great places to work" from some local magazine, and a list of "top dealers" in Automotive News but there does not seem to be enough coverage anywhere to meet the "significant coverage" or "independent coverage" clauses in WP:N Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
*Keep - Defended by references, it has received critical acclaim, which qualifies the article as notable. Also, I think that this article has been tagged far too early for deletion. The article is still new and hasn't had enough time to develop yet. I'm seeing a well-referenced article of a notable company. --
Sky Attacker (
talk) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Delete - as per comments below. --
Sky Attacker (
talk) 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
**Comment--Sky Attacker has left me
a note saying I should change my vote because I upset the balance at this AfD. Perhaps xe's right when
xe says, on my talkpage, that "I don't know what I'm doing"--in that case, should I change my vote to keep the balance right? ;)
Drmies (
talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
**Comment The above user appears to be trying to stir a disruption on Wikipedia. While the first link is not part of the AfD debate (otherwise it would've been posted here) the second link is about a completely different situation that has NOTHING to do with THIS situation whatsoever. Ignore. --
Sky Attacker (
talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)***Well, you said I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm jes askin' the good folks for advice...
Drmies (
talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
This is my first attempt at writing for Wikipedia, I struggled with the initial pages, hence the 40 edits. West Herr is a 1200 employee company and is hardly insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The owners of West Herr are very humble and very seldom give interviews or report their successes or boast about their contributions. Add to that the fact that our local newspaper the Buffalo News Archives articles to sell them instead of making them public, makes it extremely hard to prove some of the facts about West Herr. Please offer other suggested ways to cit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry my English isn't very good but I feel, that once you cut away the content that is original research or uses primary sources (half of the article is just a captain's log of some memory-alpha user's time spent on that site), there isn't enough to justify an article. This should be merged into Wikia or an article about Trekkies. The question is not whether it can be classified as 'noteworthy', but rather, whether there's enough 'substence'. For instance The New York Times article doesn't even mention memory-alpha at all, and several of the references are to pages on memory-alpha or simply unsourced. 'Hippocrates Noah's archived nomination for featured status can be found on Memory Alpha. There was an unprecedented level of debate associated with the nomination.' does not count as a source. Another example, is the influence that memory-alpha has had on other wikis. Does this get a mention in any of the references, probably not. It's just interesting facts about the site's place in wikia. I don't believe, the content of this page will be any thing more than 'memory-alpha is a star trek wiki that's pretty popular among fans. X Y Z have all noted it as a good resourse.', once you cut thru the things that don't belong on wikipedia. Its nothing personal. I have used the sight many a time myself. Tschravic ( talk) 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
it has some references, I have used it at least twice, seemed noteable - more noteable than some tiny little places that have their own articles, this article seems well enough written, has alot of information on the topic - as good and as notable as many other wikipedia articles in my humble opinion - for what its worth this reader suggests keep the article - [of course like all articles it can be improved over time] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 ( talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
It doesn't readily meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON criterion (see summary listing below)
copyright infringement: none; vandalism: none (if you don't count the repeated nominations); spam: none; forks: none; originality/hoaxes: none; lack of sources: none; notability: debatable, but since it was a featured article I'd say it's notable enough to keep; policy breach-biography of living: none; redundancy: none; overcategorization: debatable as "small lacking growth", but how else should it be listed?; Image issues: none; use contrary to policy: none; non-encyclopedic nature: none.
besides which: 6 noms? This should be a no-brainer by now. It's survived 5 rounds: Let it be already.
VulpineLady ( talk) 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
College club, with no confirmed notability beyond its campus. Google News searches turn up nothing. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo ( talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable, probable autobio. A couple of youtube videos and writing for the college paper. Dan D. Ric ( talk) 01:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to Richard Bachman#Bibliography. Just as uncontroversial as the Novels by Stephen King nomination below. Mgm| (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk ( talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Stephen King bibliography. I'm going to say that this redirect is uncontroversial enough to speedily close. Malinaccier ( talk) 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk ( talk) 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete obvious hoax/nonsense/Neologism. Salix ( talk): 13:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced Neologism - No hits on Google. Greedyhalibut ( talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Looks like a dime-a-dozen hosting service, only referenced to the website itself. Delete (or restore redirect to web hosting service). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to STV News at Six. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Video blog website which shows no evidence of notability required by WP:WEB. I42 ( talk) 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following sub-page:
The result was speedy delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unneccesary split of article, Information already covered in October 26 ∗ \ / ( ⁂) 04:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Marasmusine ( talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested PROD. Unsourced essay. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wperdue ( talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep . The concensus appears to be that the Wired article is enough to carry notability. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability still not established with reliable sources. ZoeL ( talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is a list of wedding terms, however, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor a dictionary. Furthermore, there is no clear consensus on what a "wedding term" is. TN X Man 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined A1 speedy. This article merely states that a "commercial replacement" is what takes the place of a commercial break on some channels (duh!) but gives no example of what such a replacement could consist of, hence my tagging. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence (beyond the nominator) for requested deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Non-notable term. Google returns few hits, most of them unrelated. References inserted in deprodding shed very little new light. Delete. Blanchardb - Me• MyEars• MyMouth- timed 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, aside from the Berne incident and two recent referenda (which didn't really impact relations as such), there isn't much to see. Sure, there've been the usual visits (note the extremely warm handshake exchanged between the Romanian and the Swiss Presidents), but there's nothing special about those (at least nothing encyclopedic, as opposed to newsworthy), and there's trade - but perhaps half a billion dollars' worth, in two economies that are hundreds of billions of dollars in size. To be precise, 0.6% of Romanian exports go to Switzerland, and 0.9% of imports come from there. Oh, and this brand of milk was started by a Swiss - but let's not degenerate into trivia. The point is, this relationship is nothing sort of mundane, and the lack of independent in-depth sources means we should delete. If there's really interest in linking the Berne incident with the referenda, we could always create a Category: Romania–Switzerland relations for that. Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Possible neologism based on a single allmusic article, lots of original research here neon white talk 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable distribution; no third-party sources LucAndrea ( talk) 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. A discussion as to whether or not to merge may be opened on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The information was removed from Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. and the building itself doesn't meet notability requirements. Articles such as Embassy of Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. and Thomas T. Gaff House combine the architectural, historical, and diplomatic information into one article. APK straight up now tell me 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article was previously nominated without resulting in a consensus. Fansite; article is entirely sourced from its subject; I've seen nothing that proves that it or its founders are notable or authoritive in any way. Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) reply
Evenfiel ( talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hatted extended wrangling
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I'll let the closer decide which of us has the stronger argument. :)— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Forget it. I'll just do my own summary, as if this AFD needs to get further degenerated into irrelevant discussion.
If any admin wishes to strike off, rollback or otherwise hide this entire exchange between S Marshall and myself, please do so. -- Bardin ( talk) 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply |
I've amended my side of the table as shown below:
S Marshall's position | Bardin's position |
---|---|
This nomination boils down to WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. | The only previous nomination was made over a year ago by a different nominator so it is not a case of repeated listing till it gets deleted. We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow. |
This nomination should be at DRV rather than AfD because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments or evidence not considered in the the last AFD. | Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year. |
Repeated nominations are forumshopping | The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping. |
The nominator advances no new arguments and is simply hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different. | It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago. |
It doesn't matter whether it was an hour ago, a week ago, a year ago or a century ago. There still are no new arguments here we haven't already considered at the previous closure. | Consensus can change because the opinions of editors on the same subject/policies/guidelines can change, especially in a period of over one year. |
— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Duplication of Template:Retired Pricing Games. Article contains nothing more than a list of retired games. Sottolacqua ( talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Duplication of information found within Template:Active Pricing Games. Includes no additional detail about pricing games that isn't already discussed within the show's main article Sottolacqua ( talk) 19:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep as per consensus and no requests for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Reason: gives no substantial information other than on of hundreds qigong movements. Should be mentionned in the main article about qigong with its impact on qigong movement. No article only for Zhong Gong Swissk9 ( talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hello, I am the user behind the ip 173.66.142.225. My PROD of this article was removed as vandalism. I would like to nominate this article because it has insufficient sources to indicate that this subject passes WP:WEB and there has been insufficient coverage of this to indicate that it is notable. I would also like to note that this article was created by a single purpose account and another user who has been spam username blocked. Myownusername ( talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
—
Myownusername (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding
unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
reply
—
173.66.142.225 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding
unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).
reply
* Delete Does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources as required by
WP:N.
ukexpat (
talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedily deleted as a CSD G3 blatant hoax. Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be about a location that doesn't exist; in fact, a simple Google search of the word "ekafstan" comes up with zero hits, not even a possible misspelling. And following the references in the article lead to a site that really isn't about anything (possibly a business?). It also doesn't help that the creator's username happens to be Ekafstan. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The result was Keep as per consensus and no deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo ( talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete because it fails WP:BIO and lacks sources. This does not preclude mention of his name in other articles if appropriate. Bejnar ( talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The book has a 5 star rating, with 105 reviews. This is almost unheard of, once a book has 30+ reviews. (Usually at least a few readers see fit to pan most books, and this knocks ratings down to 4 or 4.5 stars.)
Let's add some references and improve this article. The subject is definitely notable. With so many of his books in print, sources should not be too difficult to excavate. Trasel ( talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Minor music festival, no reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden related to the music label. J Milburn ( talk) 11:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep per ChildOfMidnight, but the article needs to be improved significantly. Tim meh ! 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N - no independent sources confirm any sort of a meaningful bilateral relationship. The presence of embassies is already recorded at List of diplomatic missions of Slovenia and List of diplomatic missions of Romania; their membership in NATO at Members of NATO and of the EU at Member State of the European Union. Yes, Sandoz has invested in Romania, but note that its investment is trivial enough not to have been mentioned in the Sandoz article (where it could easily be mentioned, if relevant); and yes, a Slovenian prime minister once spent two days in Romania, but these either fail the "substantial" or the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. There's certainly not enough of a relationship that we could write about which goes much beyond the trivial. Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. CSD G3. Silly, blatant hoax. Common sense dictates that we delete this article. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Another offering from Planet Hoax. A Google search show that this term is in use, but in a joking and not a scientific way. Google Scholar finds nothing, and references such as this make clear that the term has no scientific usage, and that all the article's anatomical stuff about "inferior to the lateral fissure and caudal to the central sulcus" is nonsense. The only reference cited is a more or less empty personal website. Delete. JohnCD ( talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:NFF. No indication that principal photography has commenced. There was initial talk of the film being shot in 2007 but the no development since then on. Leave Sleaves 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Creator of page in question challenging a WP:PROD in favor of a vote by fellow editors. Rms125a@hotmail.com ( talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Wizardman 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or indiscriminate collection of information. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Opening sentence of the article: "Speculation has begun to take shape over potential nominations." Case closed. Keep verifiable speculation on potential nominees' biographical articles until such time a nomination is actually made. Madcoverboy ( talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom. Speculation-based. Lord Cornwallis ( talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Although I do not believe the article breaks any guideline or policy I am concerned that the ship has no notability outside the context of its hijacking and recapture. Since that is covered in its own article, September 16, 2008 incident off Somalia, I do not believe a separate article for the ship is warranted. Unlike many other ships hijacked by Somali pirates, which have their own articles, this boat is a small private yacht that takes about 2 people. I would like to refer to a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanit (yacht). Similar type of boat, same claim to notability, and with an article already covering what the boat was notable for. The result of that AFD concluded that the ship was not notable enough for its own article (it was the process of merging that led me to the Carré d'As IV article). Plus, the information on the article is a duplication of information found on the action article, so the ship article offers nothing new that the action article doesn't. Cordovao ( talk) 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This article appears to be original research. It originally had a {{ prod}} tag, but the creator removed it without actually improving the article (s/he explained the reasoning on the talk page, but it appears s/he doesn't understand WP:N). Google came up with no sources that "flambish" is related to the word "flam" or that it is a word at all, even in Norwegian. And when I Googled "flambish" and "flam" together, it came back with a single hit, which doesn't even mention the two words in the same context. In addition, the two apparent references in the article link to the same page, which doesn't mention "flambish" at all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article concerns what appears to be a non notable rock band that lasted less than a year, having merely toured a few clubs. No reference to any records or albums released or even a record contract with a notable (or any) record label. HJMitchell You rang? 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Speedy closing this. This article is totally unsourced, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings surrounding a controversial issue. There is no need to keep this open. PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Although there may be some merit to this article, it's pretty much a non-notable essay. In addition, a Google search comes back with only eight hits, all of which are from either blogs or Yahoo! Answers. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Article is about non-notable software, with no reliable sources provided and none found. Only info I could find was mirrored download sites.
TN
X
Man 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
Hi! Thank you for helping me improving. I added the reason that I believe makes this editor noticeable: it was the first editor with visual linking and visual editing (I am a longtime fan and I use it from the very beginning, and nothing else was available at that time. Unfortunately it was born in Italy, where there is not Venture Capital or so... It's always the same story - maybe you know that the telephone was invented by the Italian Meucci, who did not have the money... then Bell with $ $ started the business... ). -- Zioziozio ( talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC) — Zioziozio ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Hum I contest so. As for the information and new references that Zioziozio recently added, it is historically the first visual web editor, at least the only one with verifiable information, within the Politecnico di Torino archives and ED-Media archives. I propose to keep the article and to remove the external links that could be promo. -- Tutankamoon ( talk) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Tutankamoon ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Hoax. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. One ( talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
any useful information should be in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of notable relations otherwise. LibStar ( talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination with no notable relations. non resident embassies. Even the Serbian govt says Economic cooperation between the two countries is insufficiently developed! LibStar ( talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable private school. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies. even the NZ govt describes this relationship as warm and based on our islands status! [72] LibStar ( talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
nn website. Losr2300 ( talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by User:Closedmouth per WP:CSD#G4 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Brianga ( talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article for deletion / PROUD actually contains several third party references including Whatsonstage, QX Magazine, The Stage and even links to direct PROUD references already cited on Wikipedia. The article was originally deleted on the grounds that there was not enough third party citation. Now that the article has been revised with the said citations I am curious what grounds the article is NOW being considered for deletion?
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Basically fails WP:MUSIC. There is a vague claim to notability (described as "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal" by Rockdetector) but that's nowhere near enough. One of their albums was re-released by the borderline notable Drakkar, but mostly their material is released through Propaganda which is a) definitely non-notable, and b) owned by the band. No significant third-party coverage; the only sources I could see were not reliable and hosted by the Propaganda website or another label that has released their records. Article has also been heavily edited by single purpose users that, whilst I'm assuming good faith, I expect to comment here. Happy to retract nom if non-trivial sources found, for instance, in Russian (a real possibility, though I tragically cannot read Russian). Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Lucifugum released 2 albums on major labels (Drakkar and Adipocere/Oaken Shield) and 2 albums on BlackMetal.Com, big indie label with many years history and many releases: http://www.blackmetal.com Resume: 4 albums on labels which correspond respective Wikipedia rules. Lucifugum article is in law. PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELITIION NOTE. p.s. If you're disagree with this: "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal", you can simply remove these words, but NOT the whole article. Lucifugum is a very notable band with many years history and many albums. -- Black pauk1488 ( talk) 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— Black pauk1488 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Hi, guys! I've made some changes on Lucifugum page. I deleted bio and emotions (cult and bla-bla-bla). There is just line-up and discography there. Just official data. Line-up everybody can see on official releases. These releases everybody can find/buy in many distros all over the world. -- Black pauk1488 ( talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-- Black pauk1488 ( talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The article is in breach of WP:POVFORK, because it discusses one aspect of Estonia-Russia relations without providing any context or contrasting views. It is also in breach of WP:SYNTH: the article puts different events under the title "Russian influence operations in Estonia," although there is no evidence that the events are part of any such "influence operations." Third, I'd like to point out that there are no similar articles in Wikipedia; there is no American influence operations in Europe or American influence operations in (name your country). Speculating whether this or that event is actually part of "influence operations" by another country is a popular subject in political journals. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a journal. It should not have articles about pure political speculation. Offliner ( talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this article as I don't believe that Rex is notable for anything other than having been one of the longest surviving WWI vets, now he has passed away, surely he is no longer notable for this? I realise that nominating a recently deceased man may seem a little cold, but even his volunteer work, while commendable, is hardly notable. Fol de rol troll ( talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to -cide. Stifle ( talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Page is a list of words ending in -cide. Apart from the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary, the only references are the main page of Wikipedia and a website called fun-with-words. PROD tag was removed on the basis that the creator thought that the page should be moved to a different name (I am not sure about the reasoning behind that either). God Emperor ( talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Adding the following article, which is an identical copy of "-cides", to the discussion.
-- bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article previously deleted. Basically nominating for the same reasons as the "melodic black metal" article that was recently deleted. The word "brutal" is frequently used as a descriptor in death metal, as a swift Google will amply demonstrate. However, there are no reliable sources at all to suggest that "brutal death metal" exists as a separate and distinct subgenre. The Purcell cite that was used in the introduction didn't back up the claims being made by the article, and what remains is purely OR synthesis. The most you can say about this supposed subgenre genre is that it is death metal which some consider quite "brutal", which is crap even as a dicdef. There's nothing worth merging either, as once you remove the OR, all you're left with is a POV, unsourced list of bands. Blackmetalbaz ( talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This YouTube-based cartoon short is supposedly very popular, according to the article. Yet Google searches fail to confirm this claim. The article does not meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo ( talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
-Hang on, but how come you guys consider it acceptable to have a whole article on EVERY Simpsons or south park episode, despite the fact that some of them may not have 30,000,000 views? Or the stub on the Prime Minster of Lichtenstien, Klaus Tshutscher, despite the fact that 30,000,000 people cannot have heard of him? And anyway, why is it that, while harmless cartoons like Pokemon or Charlie the Unicorn get their articles deleted, more obscene articles- such as "Penis"- are hundreds if not thousands of words long
The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable high school football team. No references support notability. The following similar article is also part of this nomination:
The result was keep. Wizardman 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's instead a propoganda tool (and wikipedia is not for advertisement), giving a list solely of people who uphold the fringe minority side of the debate, giving it undue weight. Furthermore, each entry is given a quotes advocating the fringe point of view, making the POV and advocacy issues even worse.
I can see no encyclopedic purpose; instead, it serves as a propoganda device. These lists are common practice of fringe views, but normally, we cover the more notable lists hosted off-wikipedia in an encyclopedic manner (e.g. A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism) instead of hosting such lists ourselves.
This may be appropriate fodder for a category, but this list is fatally flawed, and must be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. No charted single or album. No indication of national or international tour. ttonyb1 ( talk) 11:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Possible copyvio of http://hubpages . com/hub/female-apartheid-south-african-painter--------HELEN-ANNE-PETRIE <-this link (spaces added as link is blacklisted). I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion as that link's FAQ also states Do I own a topic? HubPages does not assign ownership of a specific topic to a Hubber. Anyone is free to write on any topic they like. However, by creating a high number of Hubs filled with original, useful content, you will boost your HubPages status and you may become recognized in the community as an expert. so it might not be a copyvio. I'd also like to nominate Petrie, helen anne for deletion as a redirect to Helen Anne Petrie. A v N 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Assault. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Ideally should be CSD-ed as un-encyclopedic. Should be deleted, or redirected to Vehicular homicide. A v N 10:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced article which makes heavy weather of a result which is basically a one line application of Pythagoras. Also we tend not to have articles which are proof. Salix ( talk): 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies, no evidence of notable relations. LibStar ( talk) 07:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
another random combination. non resident embassies. even the Georgia govt describes a minor relationship with minor trade and no bilateral agreements. [81] LibStar ( talk) 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I am not entirely convinced that this "professional skateboarder" is notable enough in terms of Wikipedia coverage. Recommending deletion for now. JBsupreme ( talk) 06:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of [82] -- WP:CSD#G12 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Copypaste of a forum post
Greedyhalibut ( talk) 05:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete . Redirect created at Geno Dome. Marasmusine ( talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy. Original nominator's rationale was, "No need to create a page detailing one out of dozens of locations in the game- no other locations have articles." SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about an apparently non-notable television writer as defined by the inclusion criteria at WP:N and WP:BIO. The only information on this person is short resume-style entries at websites like TV.com and IMDB. There does not appear to be any substantive, indepenednt, reliable sources out in the world about this person. Jayron32. talk. contribs 04:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article seems to completely fail WP:N and WP:BIO inclusion criteria. I see no indication of independent coverage here. This article also seems a likely WP:AUTOBIO violation. It is basically a resume for a motivational speaker, and there does not appear to be much here to hang an article on. Jayron32. talk. contribs 03:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Football rankings for Ohio high schools for 2008 - not notable. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was KEEP, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq ( talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I have no doubt this is a notable topic. However, it's also a high school paper in its present form, not an encyclopedia article. It's been sitting around now for the better part of a year, and does us no credit. When someone's ready to start anew, great, but for now, let's get rid of this essay, which no amount of editing will really "improve" into a fully-developed article. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
This may have been meant to be an article on a professional wrestler with a lower-level league, but it appears that the article's creator never bothered to complete it. I tried to research material to fill in the piece, but nothing was located that met WP:RS standards (there isn't even anything on Google for Mr. Green or his "Green Wrestling Family"). A speedy delete tag was brushed aside by a non-admin, so the article is brought here. Pastor Theo ( talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted (G2) by Canterbury Tail, Non-admin closing to clean up closure by User:Gordonrox24. Deor ( talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article already exists at Fort Benning. No need for this article. gordonrox24 ( talk) 02:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. As it stands, the article does not assert notability. If someone wants to rewrite it and add sources, they are welcome to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
No assertion of notability. Looks like product placement to me. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is about a car dealership company that does not seem to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out at either WP:N or WP:CORP. There is a single tenuous claim to notability about being named to some list of "great places to work" from some local magazine, and a list of "top dealers" in Automotive News but there does not seem to be enough coverage anywhere to meet the "significant coverage" or "independent coverage" clauses in WP:N Jayron32. talk. contribs 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
*Keep - Defended by references, it has received critical acclaim, which qualifies the article as notable. Also, I think that this article has been tagged far too early for deletion. The article is still new and hasn't had enough time to develop yet. I'm seeing a well-referenced article of a notable company. --
Sky Attacker (
talk) 02:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Delete - as per comments below. --
Sky Attacker (
talk) 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
**Comment--Sky Attacker has left me
a note saying I should change my vote because I upset the balance at this AfD. Perhaps xe's right when
xe says, on my talkpage, that "I don't know what I'm doing"--in that case, should I change my vote to keep the balance right? ;)
Drmies (
talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
**Comment The above user appears to be trying to stir a disruption on Wikipedia. While the first link is not part of the AfD debate (otherwise it would've been posted here) the second link is about a completely different situation that has NOTHING to do with THIS situation whatsoever. Ignore. --
Sky Attacker (
talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)***Well, you said I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm jes askin' the good folks for advice...
Drmies (
talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
reply
This is my first attempt at writing for Wikipedia, I struggled with the initial pages, hence the 40 edits. West Herr is a 1200 employee company and is hardly insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The owners of West Herr are very humble and very seldom give interviews or report their successes or boast about their contributions. Add to that the fact that our local newspaper the Buffalo News Archives articles to sell them instead of making them public, makes it extremely hard to prove some of the facts about West Herr. Please offer other suggested ways to cit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh ( talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry my English isn't very good but I feel, that once you cut away the content that is original research or uses primary sources (half of the article is just a captain's log of some memory-alpha user's time spent on that site), there isn't enough to justify an article. This should be merged into Wikia or an article about Trekkies. The question is not whether it can be classified as 'noteworthy', but rather, whether there's enough 'substence'. For instance The New York Times article doesn't even mention memory-alpha at all, and several of the references are to pages on memory-alpha or simply unsourced. 'Hippocrates Noah's archived nomination for featured status can be found on Memory Alpha. There was an unprecedented level of debate associated with the nomination.' does not count as a source. Another example, is the influence that memory-alpha has had on other wikis. Does this get a mention in any of the references, probably not. It's just interesting facts about the site's place in wikia. I don't believe, the content of this page will be any thing more than 'memory-alpha is a star trek wiki that's pretty popular among fans. X Y Z have all noted it as a good resourse.', once you cut thru the things that don't belong on wikipedia. Its nothing personal. I have used the sight many a time myself. Tschravic ( talk) 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
it has some references, I have used it at least twice, seemed noteable - more noteable than some tiny little places that have their own articles, this article seems well enough written, has alot of information on the topic - as good and as notable as many other wikipedia articles in my humble opinion - for what its worth this reader suggests keep the article - [of course like all articles it can be improved over time] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 ( talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
It doesn't readily meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON criterion (see summary listing below)
copyright infringement: none; vandalism: none (if you don't count the repeated nominations); spam: none; forks: none; originality/hoaxes: none; lack of sources: none; notability: debatable, but since it was a featured article I'd say it's notable enough to keep; policy breach-biography of living: none; redundancy: none; overcategorization: debatable as "small lacking growth", but how else should it be listed?; Image issues: none; use contrary to policy: none; non-encyclopedic nature: none.
besides which: 6 noms? This should be a no-brainer by now. It's survived 5 rounds: Let it be already.
VulpineLady ( talk) 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
College club, with no confirmed notability beyond its campus. Google News searches turn up nothing. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo ( talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable, probable autobio. A couple of youtube videos and writing for the college paper. Dan D. Ric ( talk) 01:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy redirect to Richard Bachman#Bibliography. Just as uncontroversial as the Novels by Stephen King nomination below. Mgm| (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk ( talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Redirect to Stephen King bibliography. I'm going to say that this redirect is uncontroversial enough to speedily close. Malinaccier ( talk) 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk ( talk) 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete obvious hoax/nonsense/Neologism. Salix ( talk): 13:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Unsourced Neologism - No hits on Google. Greedyhalibut ( talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Looks like a dime-a-dozen hosting service, only referenced to the website itself. Delete (or restore redirect to web hosting service). - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to STV News at Six. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC) reply
Video blog website which shows no evidence of notability required by WP:WEB. I42 ( talk) 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following sub-page: