The result was delete. Let me know if anyone wnats the content for a merge. Courcelles ( talk) 01:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article covers how the films were altered to be shown to television audiences. This appears trivial to indicate how vulgar language is censored and violence is cut back to meet television viewing requirements. This article could spawn similar articles for other film franchises, which seems unnecessary as many films are altered in some way when shown on television (especially if it differs by network, time of day, or by country). If there is significant differences that are notable for a film altered to be shown in other mediums, then it can be briefly covered in a single section within the film article(s). I would recommend any notable differences be incorporated into the Die Hard (franchise) article. Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Deleted A7, which was overturned by DRV, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band after looking over google and Gnews search results. As S Marshall said in the DRV, the "article is sourced mainly to myspace, facebook, blogs and youtube". Further, I can't find any evidence to substantiate the claim of fulfilling other criteria in WP:BAND made in the DRV. Tim Song ( talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This AfD was closed procedurally, as it was nominated by a likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. I am re-nominating, as I think it fails the criteria for inclusion. The article fails WP:N, as it is one of New Jersey's oldest retail nurseries, but not the oldest. This seems to be a particularly thin claim to notability. mono 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article purports to be about a Bulgarian football team, but no sources are provided, nor can I find any Google hits for this team name outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. It doesn't even appear that we have an article about the league this team allegedly plays in. Unless and until reliable independent sources confirm the existence of this club, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If its existence is verified, we can then deal with the question of whether it is notable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Despite this article having a few refs, none of them actually assert that the company is notable. The press-release is actually self published through one of the free press release websites. Wizard191 ( talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
StingRay Manufacturing is notable. While it is a new corporation it is important to note that is evolved from The MART Corporation as stated in the article. MART is the inventor of the power wash process that was instrumental in eliminating the use of Tri Clor in cleaning. This article published by Turi.org explains: www.turi.org/content/download/3549/43887/file/techreport22.pdf Since MART has gone out of business it is significant to note that the developers of the original technology have moved to a new product name and that the same technology continues to be developed and refined. One of the engineers, Marc Treppler, at StingRay has numerous patents relating to parts washer technology. www.patentuniverse.com/US5782252.html www.patentuniverse.com/US5971063.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupler ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
While many of these files are PD, some are still copyrighted. Commons is an entirely encyclopedic place to put galleries, Wikipedia is not a repository of media files. Another issue is how to deal with claiming fair use for these images--there's no text in which they are discussed, the only thing that remotely makes fair use acceptable here is the title of the page. Looking at the history, quite a few images have already been removed, so I'm not sure what the point of having an incomplete list would look like--Gallery of country coats of arms in the public domain? Lastly, if this is determined to be a keep, I propose renaming it back to Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms (see first AfD) because our list of countries is actually a list of sovereign states, which does include Taiwan, Kosovo, etc. as de facto sovereign states, and under whose criteria for inclusion this gallery should be based on as well. (This does not address the issue of there being historic coats of arms not officially used today, and being excluded from this list, however.) So I'm in favor first of a transwiki free sections to Commons/delete and if kept, a rename. — fetch · comms 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
— fetch · comms 00:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This near-unreferenced page contains only general information about the history and structure of the UN, nothing to flesh out an article at all. The first section contains two sentences about the UK being a founding UN member (already covered, much better-ly, in History of the United Nations); the second section simply notes the fact that Britain has a veto power (again, covered in greater depth and more encyclopedically in United Nations Security Council veto power etc.) ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Akirn ( talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is about a geographic term that does not appear to exist. Contrary to the lead sentence that states "Upstate Connecticut is a term commonly used to refer to Connecticut's rural northern counties," the use of this term appears to be limited to Wikipedia, a fictional movie, a few random statements on webpages (mostly non-RS).
In August 2009, I added the notability template to the article, with the note "I don't see evidence that this terminology is truly established by a reliable source." Subsequently, a map that was formerly in the article was removed with the edit summary "Map is not based on fact, rather personal opinion", and there has been some discussion on the talk page, but no one has supplied nontrivial sources to substantiate the use of the term. The term gets a lot of ghits, but most are links to the plot or reviews of the movie
The Haunting in Connecticut, which seems to be the source of this term.
It's high time to remove the article, before this term enters common usage because people believe the Wikipedia article.
Orlady (
talk) 21:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep Clearly a term that is in widespread use. The fact that it may have started off as a neologism doesn't discount the fact that it can also be a definitive concept. I mean, you have Reaganism, McCarthyism, Bushism, Clintonism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. Notable and powerful leaders often derive their 'ism'. And it isn't always complementary.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:Neologism. The term Putinism has been used as a neologism for the rule of Vladimir Putin, mostly in a derogatory way, but does not justify its own article. Most of the article is hostile criticism about Putin drawn from editorials and US conservative think tanks. TFD ( talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Notable for being a wife of a redlinked person, a relative of notable persons and a "socialite." Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison ( talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Seems just to have been a man who had a job and eventually an obituary. Edison ( talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Historically significant, long-serving judge per above comments. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was snow keep. ( non-admin closure) VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Nothing here to show that
WP:ORG or
WP:N are satisfied. Also is no more than a dictionary definition.
Edison (
talk) 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Keep votes are particularly weak (some are frankly spurious), but even taking that into account there appears to be enough reasonable rationales not to close this as Delete. This closure does of course not preclude a re-nomination at any point. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO, with only directory listings and passing references at Google Book Search, and some hits about different persons with a similar name. Being related to a notable person does not make him notable. Edison ( talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
*Delete. Unfortunately, no assertion of notability. Just a mere pastor from a very famous family.
Gattosby (
talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Just added to the article by RAN. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)::Maybe not as rigorous as the British equivalent (DNB) but like I said before the preponderance of the evidence points toward plausible notability. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict):: @RAN: Exactly. It doesn't sound like the Cyclopaedia is a reliable source, and WP:GNG and WP:BIO require coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Reams of coverage in non-reliable sources, or non-independent sources doesn't add up to notability. Yilloslime T C 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A scandal involving his daughter and which led to his resignation, at a time when scandals were almost unthinkable, especially in families of the American Priesthood, and this article is still at AfD mode? Scandalous. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
This listing of awards is short enough that it can be merged into the show's main article with great ease.
WCityMike 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. I have been unable to find any coverage at all. SPA editor. Haakon ( talk) 19:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This can be recreated if/when he meets WP:PROF, but the consensus is that, at present, he does not, nor is the IMO sufficent to pass WP:ATHLETE. Courcelles ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The article was deprodded on the grounds that the subject won a gold medal in the 2006 International Mathematics Olympiad. This does not automatically confer notability on the subject: roughly the top 10% of participants receive golds, and anyway as a high-school competition it would hardly seem to rise to the level of WP:ATHLETE. The only other evidence of notability is some triangle centers named after the subject in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers. I believe, per a comment made by User:David Eppstein, that this can be used as a source for articles, but not as a source for establishing notability, much like the OEIS. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence stub of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article asserts no notability whatsoever. There's no indication that this is a notable film. Sugar Bear ( talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to TV On The Radio. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Record does not appear to be notable and did not appear to chart or win any awards or anything. Also, (which is how I stumbled on it )what is strange is all the individual song titles redirect to the article what links there, bit excessive for a not notable self released album. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
possible crosswiki spam Esteban ( talk) 01:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
speedy declined... *sigh*... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:CRYSTAL Manway ( talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. There are some sensible suggestions for merging but the suggested target is HUGE so such a move would best be worked out on both talk pages. IMHO the most sensible thing to do is a straight redirect to List_of_Batman_enemies#Foes_of_lesser_renown but nobody has !voted for that and I don't like to do supervotes. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Penny Plunderer is a non-notable minor Batman supervillain. Joe Chill ( talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G6, uncontroversial maintenance. Tim Song ( talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Do we even need this disambiguation page? It disambiguates between a politician and a minor character from a soap opera who doesn't have her own article, just a redirect. It seems to me that deleting this disambig, moving the politicians article here, and a hatnote for the character's redirect would be a more elegant solution. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Prod'd, prod seconded by another editor, and then removed by a third, so here we are. Article is sourced by subject's own website, and appears to exist for the purpose of driving traffic thereto. Claims of notability rest upon having been commissioned to create art projects; there is an attempt to conflate commissions with awards. Bulk of the article written by SPA; see [32]. Can't find a notability standard that this person would qualify under. Heather ( talk) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. enough consensus on WP:N JForget 01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Heavily promotional; sourced by subject's own website. The article in Wired is a human interest piece that could have just as easily been about thousands of other non-notable individuals; it only notes that he is engaged in a long-distance relationship, not anything which might make him inherently notable. Heather ( talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List_of_Merlin_characters#Great_Dragon. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable minor character in a television program. No citations/references. Claritas § 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDIRECTORY ttonyb ( talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was created three years ago by an account with no other edits, and seems to be a pet concept of said editor. It has zero references, is fairly meandering, and doesn't really have a point, except something vaguely related to multimedia and the internet. It also hasn't been touched much since it was created, despite numerous tags. I can't figure out how this is notable on its own. Torchiest talk/ contribs 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Very little information and no references whatsoever. I'd speedy tag it if there was one that is appropriate for this Trey lander 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not meet the ARTIST guidance. Searching through Google News, there is one story on 20/21 May 2010 that mentions this artist in relation to a charity event. There are no results in Google Books. There seems little prospect for future improvement. Though there was only the artist's website as a source, WP:BLPPROD rejected, hence raising for further discussion. Fæ ( talk) 12:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication that the person has competed at a notable level. See also [42] Eldumpo ( talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Contested PROD. Non-notable website. Note that I have PRODded the related magazine. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Very scant mentions in a couple of websites confirm the subject has done photography work, but that is it. No reliable sources confirm the article's claims to notability. Mkativerata ( talk) 07:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Procedural close - This is a redirect, and should be listed at WP:RFD for attention. Mjroots ( talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Insignificant EunSoo ( talk) 05:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 1 "incubate" suggestion. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a borderline neologism. A google search of "eccentric jupiter" returns 42 hits, most of which are not used in the manner of "eccentric Jupiter" as a term, but rather "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet" or something similar. For this reason, an exact definition does not seem to exist. The article uses e > 0.1 as the dividing line, but I was unable to find anything backing that up. Without any significant usage of the term or a clear definition, I do not think it should be an article. James McBride ( talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm curious how Hot europa turns out. (Yikes.) I did try to improve puffy planet back in March by calling it what it is. -- Kheider ( talk) 04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:N and few rs. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Wolfe and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Pheister. mono 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:N and few rs found. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Wolfe. mono 04:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Of local interest only. Non-notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 07:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG No references to support notability. Wintonian ( talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable topic, spam. Not an important company
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication that this preacher was influential in the "New Thought Movement," or was one of its leaders. Non-Notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Patently non-notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Articles makes no allegation of anything notable this person did.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable website, spam.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Judges that are not on the high court are not notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Obscure company, no reason given why it merits an article, and spam.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable topic: this looks like a school report. St Anselm ( talk) 02:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Another editor's prod was contested, so here we are.
Enid Blyton is certainly notable, and if someone wants to write articles about every one of her hundreds of books, a good argument could be made for keeping them all. These, however, are not exactly Enid Blyton books. This is a recent
"series" confected by taking old Blyton non-series works—Holiday House (1955), The Boy Next Door (1944), Hollow Tree House (1945), etc. (see
Enid Blyton bibliography)—which originally had no characters in common, and "editing" (i.e., extensively rewriting) them to feature a common set of characters protagonists. I can find no evidence of any treatment of this project in
reliable, independent sources that would allow the topic to satisfy the requirements of
WP:BK.
Deor (
talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a school report! St Anselm ( talk) 02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Sizeable amounts of unverified, unoriginal sourcing. Also of dubious notability. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Kept. Snow keep, overwhelming opinion in favor of keeping. The article is not just about the word but also the title and cultural background - any incomplete coverage should be dealt with by expansion, not deletion. Dcoetzee 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a good example of why WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a good policy. As a modern American the word "lady" means something like "an upper-class (or at least respectable) woman." However the article is not about upper-class or respectable women. It is about the word "lady", in violation of the basic principle of "not a dictionary." The fact that the same word can mean many things to many people is another point to consider, and a part of the cause of the weakness of the article, although I'm sure the editors did their best. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
decltype
(
talk) 02:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Taunton, Massachusetts. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article as it currently stands appears to be an attempt at creating a website instead of an article. I have tried to cleanup and source the article. I find articles that discuss the department, but most of them are about fires and other emergencies the department has responded to. There is some discussion about actions the Taunton City Council has taken or proposed about the department. The department has three firehouses that are listed as National Historic Places that have their own articles. I do not believe there is enough to say the fire department is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP; prod (not mine) contested. I can find no reliable, independent sources that establish the notability of this person or support any of the biographical content of the article. Of the three publications listed, Shatterday is a self-published (Lulu) work. The external links appear to be dead. The article fails WP:BIO. Deor ( talk) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was already deleted by Malik Shabazz. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced. Not sure how notable this school is. Needs cleanup Cssiitcic ( talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Cruz-iglesia ( talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
nn organization . I cannot find significant non trivial coverage in Reliable sources Oo7565 ( talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP. Subject is potentially notable as a voice in the Spanish dub of the upcoming Toy Story 3. No reliable sources provided, unable to find any. Disputed prod. SummerPhD ( talk) 03:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fernández-Peña is the voice of Spanish Buzz in the international version of Toy Story 3, not the Spanish dub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenp70 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Stabilo_(band)#Discography. Redirecting on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Although it's not clear-cut, I don't think this individual meets notability criteria. He was awarded by the Nashville Technology Council - but that award doesn't appear to be notable, and the only coverage it resulted in appears to be local in scope and specialist in nature (business press). I42 ( talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
There have been a large number of articles about Health Mason in recent times, including the very important Medical News: [1] and [2] , and [3] and [4] [5] [6] and [7] and many others including the ones referenced in the article. The fact the Nashville Technological Council has recognized Sal Novin, as the 2009 Innovator of the Year, and the buzz that this innovation has created around the world makes me absolutely convinced the person noteworthy. I also found a reference to Health Masson and Sal Novin in the Reference dictionary.
Artaxerex ( talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this book is notable; and very little of any encyclopaedic value in the article. This search for reviews shows 32 hits almost none of which have any relevance - reader reviews, passing mentions etc. I can't find a single review that meets WP criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. andy ( talk) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I have rewritten the page to meet standards. Please look at it. Also, you must have messed up the search because I found many references and reviews for it.
Willy625 ( talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
While schools are generally notable and articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia, this is about an unofficial school which the article states is not recognised by the Dutch government. Biker Biker ( talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable person - VP of a regional branch of a large company but not notable for any other reason. Similar reasons resulted in deletion of Michael Duck ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Duck) who from memory worked for the same company. Biker Biker ( talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Numerically this si even, however, the keep votes are particularly weak. The IP claims all local news anchors are notable- not the case, and AlandOrland's vote is, just that, just a vote. MelanieN's is the only keep argument that is grounded in policy. (To be fair, Bearian's !vote to delete based on past outcomes isn't a good argument, either) but the consensus is still that this is not enough sourcing or notability to justify a BLP, hence, I'm closing this as a delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Local news reporter lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Has won one local award for best anchor; however, it does not appear this is enough to provide Wikipedia notability. ttonyb ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – MuZemike 03:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Vague subject with minimal (if any) reliable sourcing. Largely original research and not much else. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Technically, this is an obvious "no consensus" given that almost nobody bothered to comment, but given that this an porrly source biography of a living person, nobody has objected to its deletion and it has been deleted , I'm going to go with a delete, invoking WP:IAR if I must. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I question the notability of this person. Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n( talk page) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 03:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone finds any sources in the future, just let me know. Courcelles ( talk) 01:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N IQinn ( talk) 03:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Let me know if anyone wnats the content for a merge. Courcelles ( talk) 01:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article covers how the films were altered to be shown to television audiences. This appears trivial to indicate how vulgar language is censored and violence is cut back to meet television viewing requirements. This article could spawn similar articles for other film franchises, which seems unnecessary as many films are altered in some way when shown on television (especially if it differs by network, time of day, or by country). If there is significant differences that are notable for a film altered to be shown in other mediums, then it can be briefly covered in a single section within the film article(s). I would recommend any notable differences be incorporated into the Die Hard (franchise) article. Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 23:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Deleted A7, which was overturned by DRV, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources for this band after looking over google and Gnews search results. As S Marshall said in the DRV, the "article is sourced mainly to myspace, facebook, blogs and youtube". Further, I can't find any evidence to substantiate the claim of fulfilling other criteria in WP:BAND made in the DRV. Tim Song ( talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This AfD was closed procedurally, as it was nominated by a likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. I am re-nominating, as I think it fails the criteria for inclusion. The article fails WP:N, as it is one of New Jersey's oldest retail nurseries, but not the oldest. This seems to be a particularly thin claim to notability. mono 23:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article purports to be about a Bulgarian football team, but no sources are provided, nor can I find any Google hits for this team name outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. It doesn't even appear that we have an article about the league this team allegedly plays in. Unless and until reliable independent sources confirm the existence of this club, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If its existence is verified, we can then deal with the question of whether it is notable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Despite this article having a few refs, none of them actually assert that the company is notable. The press-release is actually self published through one of the free press release websites. Wizard191 ( talk) 22:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
StingRay Manufacturing is notable. While it is a new corporation it is important to note that is evolved from The MART Corporation as stated in the article. MART is the inventor of the power wash process that was instrumental in eliminating the use of Tri Clor in cleaning. This article published by Turi.org explains: www.turi.org/content/download/3549/43887/file/techreport22.pdf Since MART has gone out of business it is significant to note that the developers of the original technology have moved to a new product name and that the same technology continues to be developed and refined. One of the engineers, Marc Treppler, at StingRay has numerous patents relating to parts washer technology. www.patentuniverse.com/US5782252.html www.patentuniverse.com/US5971063.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grupler ( talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
While many of these files are PD, some are still copyrighted. Commons is an entirely encyclopedic place to put galleries, Wikipedia is not a repository of media files. Another issue is how to deal with claiming fair use for these images--there's no text in which they are discussed, the only thing that remotely makes fair use acceptable here is the title of the page. Looking at the history, quite a few images have already been removed, so I'm not sure what the point of having an incomplete list would look like--Gallery of country coats of arms in the public domain? Lastly, if this is determined to be a keep, I propose renaming it back to Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms (see first AfD) because our list of countries is actually a list of sovereign states, which does include Taiwan, Kosovo, etc. as de facto sovereign states, and under whose criteria for inclusion this gallery should be based on as well. (This does not address the issue of there being historic coats of arms not officially used today, and being excluded from this list, however.) So I'm in favor first of a transwiki free sections to Commons/delete and if kept, a rename. — fetch · comms 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
— fetch · comms 00:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This near-unreferenced page contains only general information about the history and structure of the UN, nothing to flesh out an article at all. The first section contains two sentences about the UK being a founding UN member (already covered, much better-ly, in History of the United Nations); the second section simply notes the fact that Britain has a veto power (again, covered in greater depth and more encyclopedically in United Nations Security Council veto power etc.) ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 22:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Akirn ( talk) 19:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article is about a geographic term that does not appear to exist. Contrary to the lead sentence that states "Upstate Connecticut is a term commonly used to refer to Connecticut's rural northern counties," the use of this term appears to be limited to Wikipedia, a fictional movie, a few random statements on webpages (mostly non-RS).
In August 2009, I added the notability template to the article, with the note "I don't see evidence that this terminology is truly established by a reliable source." Subsequently, a map that was formerly in the article was removed with the edit summary "Map is not based on fact, rather personal opinion", and there has been some discussion on the talk page, but no one has supplied nontrivial sources to substantiate the use of the term. The term gets a lot of ghits, but most are links to the plot or reviews of the movie
The Haunting in Connecticut, which seems to be the source of this term.
It's high time to remove the article, before this term enters common usage because people believe the Wikipedia article.
Orlady (
talk) 21:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was Keep Clearly a term that is in widespread use. The fact that it may have started off as a neologism doesn't discount the fact that it can also be a definitive concept. I mean, you have Reaganism, McCarthyism, Bushism, Clintonism, Stalinism, Leninism, Maoism, etc. Notable and powerful leaders often derive their 'ism'. And it isn't always complementary.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:Neologism. The term Putinism has been used as a neologism for the rule of Vladimir Putin, mostly in a derogatory way, but does not justify its own article. Most of the article is hostile criticism about Putin drawn from editorials and US conservative think tanks. TFD ( talk) 21:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 01:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Notable for being a wife of a redlinked person, a relative of notable persons and a "socialite." Appears to fail WP:BIO. Edison ( talk) 21:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Courcelles ( talk) 01:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO. Seems just to have been a man who had a job and eventually an obituary. Edison ( talk) 21:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Historically significant, long-serving judge per above comments. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was snow keep. ( non-admin closure) VernoWhitney ( talk) 23:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Nothing here to show that
WP:ORG or
WP:N are satisfied. Also is no more than a dictionary definition.
Edison (
talk) 21:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus. Keep votes are particularly weak (some are frankly spurious), but even taking that into account there appears to be enough reasonable rationales not to close this as Delete. This closure does of course not preclude a re-nomination at any point. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:BIO, with only directory listings and passing references at Google Book Search, and some hits about different persons with a similar name. Being related to a notable person does not make him notable. Edison ( talk) 21:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
*Delete. Unfortunately, no assertion of notability. Just a mere pastor from a very famous family.
Gattosby (
talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
reply
Just added to the article by RAN. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict)::Maybe not as rigorous as the British equivalent (DNB) but like I said before the preponderance of the evidence points toward plausible notability. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 22:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict):: @RAN: Exactly. It doesn't sound like the Cyclopaedia is a reliable source, and WP:GNG and WP:BIO require coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Reams of coverage in non-reliable sources, or non-independent sources doesn't add up to notability. Yilloslime T C 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
A scandal involving his daughter and which led to his resignation, at a time when scandals were almost unthinkable, especially in families of the American Priesthood, and this article is still at AfD mode? Scandalous. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 01:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
This listing of awards is short enough that it can be merged into the show's main article with great ease.
WCityMike 20:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Essentially, this article's subject would be better served if collected into one SINGLE article for the show's characters; this article has not been actively developed. I suggest this article be deleted and merged into
List of minor characters on The Larry Sanders Show, which would then be renamed with the word "minor" struck from the article title.
WCityMike 20:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 20:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence long-ignored undeveloped stub article of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 20:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication of notability. I have been unable to find any coverage at all. SPA editor. Haakon ( talk) 19:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. This can be recreated if/when he meets WP:PROF, but the consensus is that, at present, he does not, nor is the IMO sufficent to pass WP:ATHLETE. Courcelles ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. The article was deprodded on the grounds that the subject won a gold medal in the 2006 International Mathematics Olympiad. This does not automatically confer notability on the subject: roughly the top 10% of participants receive golds, and anyway as a high-school competition it would hardly seem to rise to the level of WP:ATHLETE. The only other evidence of notability is some triangle centers named after the subject in the Encyclopedia of Triangle Centers. I believe, per a comment made by User:David Eppstein, that this can be used as a source for articles, but not as a source for establishing notability, much like the OEIS. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn by nom. – sgeureka t• c 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
WITHDRAWN AND CAN BE CLOSED. As pointed out, a merge doesn't necessitate an AfD. Sorry for the clutter.
WCityMike 00:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
One-sentence stub of non-primary character of long off-the-air series.
WCityMike 19:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Article asserts no notability whatsoever. There's no indication that this is a notable film. Sugar Bear ( talk) 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to TV On The Radio. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Record does not appear to be notable and did not appear to chart or win any awards or anything. Also, (which is how I stumbled on it )what is strange is all the individual song titles redirect to the article what links there, bit excessive for a not notable self released album. Off2riorob ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
possible crosswiki spam Esteban ( talk) 01:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
speedy declined... *sigh*... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Violates WP:CRYSTAL Manway ( talk) 17:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. The only thing that is certain here is that no delete buttons are going to be pushed. There are some sensible suggestions for merging but the suggested target is HUGE so such a move would best be worked out on both talk pages. IMHO the most sensible thing to do is a straight redirect to List_of_Batman_enemies#Foes_of_lesser_renown but nobody has !voted for that and I don't like to do supervotes. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Penny Plunderer is a non-notable minor Batman supervillain. Joe Chill ( talk) 17:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete. G6, uncontroversial maintenance. Tim Song ( talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Do we even need this disambiguation page? It disambiguates between a politician and a minor character from a soap opera who doesn't have her own article, just a redirect. It seems to me that deleting this disambig, moving the politicians article here, and a hatnote for the character's redirect would be a more elegant solution. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 16:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Prod'd, prod seconded by another editor, and then removed by a third, so here we are. Article is sourced by subject's own website, and appears to exist for the purpose of driving traffic thereto. Claims of notability rest upon having been commissioned to create art projects; there is an attempt to conflate commissions with awards. Bulk of the article written by SPA; see [32]. Can't find a notability standard that this person would qualify under. Heather ( talk) 15:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. enough consensus on WP:N JForget 01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested prod. Heavily promotional; sourced by subject's own website. The article in Wired is a human interest piece that could have just as easily been about thousands of other non-notable individuals; it only notes that he is engaged in a long-distance relationship, not anything which might make him inherently notable. Heather ( talk) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to List_of_Merlin_characters#Great_Dragon. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Contested proposed deletion. Non-notable minor character in a television program. No citations/references. Claritas § 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTDIRECTORY ttonyb ( talk) 14:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This article was created three years ago by an account with no other edits, and seems to be a pet concept of said editor. It has zero references, is fairly meandering, and doesn't really have a point, except something vaguely related to multimedia and the internet. It also hasn't been touched much since it was created, despite numerous tags. I can't figure out how this is notable on its own. Torchiest talk/ contribs 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Very little information and no references whatsoever. I'd speedy tag it if there was one that is appropriate for this Trey lander 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Does not meet the ARTIST guidance. Searching through Google News, there is one story on 20/21 May 2010 that mentions this artist in relation to a charity event. There are no results in Google Books. There seems little prospect for future improvement. Though there was only the artist's website as a source, WP:BLPPROD rejected, hence raising for further discussion. Fæ ( talk) 12:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication that the person has competed at a notable level. See also [42] Eldumpo ( talk) 08:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete. Contested PROD. Non-notable website. Note that I have PRODded the related magazine. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Very scant mentions in a couple of websites confirm the subject has done photography work, but that is it. No reliable sources confirm the article's claims to notability. Mkativerata ( talk) 07:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Procedural close - This is a redirect, and should be listed at WP:RFD for attention. Mjroots ( talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Insignificant EunSoo ( talk) 05:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and 1 "incubate" suggestion. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This seems to be a borderline neologism. A google search of "eccentric jupiter" returns 42 hits, most of which are not used in the manner of "eccentric Jupiter" as a term, but rather "an eccentric Jupiter-like planet" or something similar. For this reason, an exact definition does not seem to exist. The article uses e > 0.1 as the dividing line, but I was unable to find anything backing that up. Without any significant usage of the term or a clear definition, I do not think it should be an article. James McBride ( talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm curious how Hot europa turns out. (Yikes.) I did try to improve puffy planet back in March by calling it what it is. -- Kheider ( talk) 04:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:N and few rs. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Wolfe and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jason_Pheister. mono 04:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
WP:N and few rs found. See similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_F._Wolfe. mono 04:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Of local interest only. Non-notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was speedily deleted (G11, advertising) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Deor ( talk) 07:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:ORG No references to support notability. Wintonian ( talk) 04:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable topic, spam. Not an important company
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No indication that this preacher was influential in the "New Thought Movement," or was one of its leaders. Non-Notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Patently non-notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Articles makes no allegation of anything notable this person did.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable website, spam.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Judges that are not on the high court are not notable.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was procedural close, kept, nom was by likely and now-blocked sockpuppet. Gwen Gale ( talk) 14:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Obscure company, no reason given why it merits an article, and spam.
Ocean Mystic Researcher (
talk) 03:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a notable topic: this looks like a school report. St Anselm ( talk) 02:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. JForget 01:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Another editor's prod was contested, so here we are.
Enid Blyton is certainly notable, and if someone wants to write articles about every one of her hundreds of books, a good argument could be made for keeping them all. These, however, are not exactly Enid Blyton books. This is a recent
"series" confected by taking old Blyton non-series works—Holiday House (1955), The Boy Next Door (1944), Hollow Tree House (1945), etc. (see
Enid Blyton bibliography)—which originally had no characters in common, and "editing" (i.e., extensively rewriting) them to feature a common set of characters protagonists. I can find no evidence of any treatment of this project in
reliable, independent sources that would allow the topic to satisfy the requirements of
WP:BK.
Deor (
talk) 02:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a school report! St Anselm ( talk) 02:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Sizeable amounts of unverified, unoriginal sourcing. Also of dubious notability. Shawn Is Here: Now in colors 02:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was Kept. Snow keep, overwhelming opinion in favor of keeping. The article is not just about the word but also the title and cultural background - any incomplete coverage should be dealt with by expansion, not deletion. Dcoetzee 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
This is a good example of why WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is a good policy. As a modern American the word "lady" means something like "an upper-class (or at least respectable) woman." However the article is not about upper-class or respectable women. It is about the word "lady", in violation of the basic principle of "not a dictionary." The fact that the same word can mean many things to many people is another point to consider, and a part of the cause of the weakness of the article, although I'm sure the editors did their best. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
decltype
(
talk) 02:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
The result was merge to Taunton, Massachusetts. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The article as it currently stands appears to be an attempt at creating a website instead of an article. I have tried to cleanup and source the article. I find articles that discuss the department, but most of them are about fires and other emergencies the department has responded to. There is some discussion about actions the Taunton City Council has taken or proposed about the department. The department has three firehouses that are listed as National Historic Places that have their own articles. I do not believe there is enough to say the fire department is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP; prod (not mine) contested. I can find no reliable, independent sources that establish the notability of this person or support any of the biographical content of the article. Of the three publications listed, Shatterday is a self-published (Lulu) work. The external links appear to be dead. The article fails WP:BIO. Deor ( talk) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was already deleted by Malik Shabazz. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced. Not sure how notable this school is. Needs cleanup Cssiitcic ( talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Cruz-iglesia ( talk) 18:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
nn organization . I cannot find significant non trivial coverage in Reliable sources Oo7565 ( talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsourced BLP. Subject is potentially notable as a voice in the Spanish dub of the upcoming Toy Story 3. No reliable sources provided, unable to find any. Disputed prod. SummerPhD ( talk) 03:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fernández-Peña is the voice of Spanish Buzz in the international version of Toy Story 3, not the Spanish dub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenp70 ( talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Stabilo_(band)#Discography. Redirecting on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 22:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Although it's not clear-cut, I don't think this individual meets notability criteria. He was awarded by the Nashville Technology Council - but that award doesn't appear to be notable, and the only coverage it resulted in appears to be local in scope and specialist in nature (business press). I42 ( talk) 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
There have been a large number of articles about Health Mason in recent times, including the very important Medical News: [1] and [2] , and [3] and [4] [5] [6] and [7] and many others including the ones referenced in the article. The fact the Nashville Technological Council has recognized Sal Novin, as the 2009 Innovator of the Year, and the buzz that this innovation has created around the world makes me absolutely convinced the person noteworthy. I also found a reference to Health Masson and Sal Novin in the Reference dictionary.
Artaxerex ( talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 22:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
No evidence that this book is notable; and very little of any encyclopaedic value in the article. This search for reviews shows 32 hits almost none of which have any relevance - reader reviews, passing mentions etc. I can't find a single review that meets WP criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Criteria. andy ( talk) 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I have rewritten the page to meet standards. Please look at it. Also, you must have messed up the search because I found many references and reviews for it.
Willy625 ( talk) 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 22:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
While schools are generally notable and articles are allowed to remain on Wikipedia, this is about an unofficial school which the article states is not recognised by the Dutch government. Biker Biker ( talk) 17:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus. Courcelles ( talk) 01:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Unremarkable person - VP of a regional branch of a large company but not notable for any other reason. Similar reasons resulted in deletion of Michael Duck ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Duck) who from memory worked for the same company. Biker Biker ( talk) 17:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Numerically this si even, however, the keep votes are particularly weak. The IP claims all local news anchors are notable- not the case, and AlandOrland's vote is, just that, just a vote. MelanieN's is the only keep argument that is grounded in policy. (To be fair, Bearian's !vote to delete based on past outcomes isn't a good argument, either) but the consensus is still that this is not enough sourcing or notability to justify a BLP, hence, I'm closing this as a delete. Courcelles ( talk) 01:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Local news reporter lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Has won one local award for best anchor; however, it does not appear this is enough to provide Wikipedia notability. ttonyb ( talk) 15:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – MuZemike 03:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Vague subject with minimal (if any) reliable sourcing. Largely original research and not much else. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Technically, this is an obvious "no consensus" given that almost nobody bothered to comment, but given that this an porrly source biography of a living person, nobody has objected to its deletion and it has been deleted , I'm going to go with a delete, invoking WP:IAR if I must. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I question the notability of this person. Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 01:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Can not find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. Does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n( talk page) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 03:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. If anyone finds any sources in the future, just let me know. Courcelles ( talk) 01:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 03:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 01:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:GNG IQinn ( talk) 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:N IQinn ( talk) 03:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Cirt ( talk) 00:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply