The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to have an article at this time.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, mostly promotional article about an ad-driven search engine. Only external ref is a couple of words in a Wall St Journal piece reprinted in one of the subject's own blogs. Deiz talk 23:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Kkkkkkkkkeep as Claudius might have said. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased film, very little verifiable info outside IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable. -- jonny- m t 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
According to IMBD (not even a reliabe source), which is the only reference provided by the article, there's no evidence that this actress meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was a section that was copied from a now-deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York). Subject matter is essentially bogus; no reliably sourced evidence exists that "Castle" is a name for this zip code, and zip codes are not a basic unit for US census data. Although earlier PROD template was removed with a note saying "notable per ghits, secondary and third party sources are abundant", the article still does not cite those "abundant sources". (Furthermore, ghits don't confer notability, not to mention that I can't find many ghits.) Orlady ( talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page for identical reasons:
The result was Speedy keep, nom effectively withdrew. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Single book does not this person notable — G716 < T· C> 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deletion (G12). Though there was no copyright notice on the exact page the content was copied from, there are copyright notices throughout the website. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced personal essay. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a brief repetition of plot elements from a two part episode from Star Trek the Next Generation, and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a living person convicted of murder; currently only sourced to one news story. Other than the salacious and dramatic nature of the crime, I can't figure out why this individual is considered notable (any more so than any other violent criminal) -- unlike, say, the vaguely similar Lorena Bobbitt case, this crime does not seem to have entered mainstream coverage or the popular imagination. Apparently the trial caused some comment when the prosecuters reenacted the crime, but I can't find too much about that -- Lexis-Nexis has only three items, two of which are records from the court and one a quick AP story. Searching on her full name, there are only 67 google hits, many of which are Wikipedia mirrors; a search of the database "America's Newspapers" (library subscription only, covers the national press) comes up with only 16 stories, most from local (Texas) papers. While clearly this incident happened, the article seems unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, and as it stands a violation of the BLP policy. Though I'm generally inclusionist, this seems like an area in which to particularly take care with what articles we include. NB: if the decision is to keep, I'll stub and source it as best I'm able, but the results seem likely to be unsatisfactory. phoebe / ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable person. If anyone wishes to work on a userfied version, please let me know and I will supply the text. -- jonny- m t 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person who gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. — Lincolnite ( talk) 20:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Secondary source was added on Lorenzo. Article from a National magazine. Links just need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.153 ( talk) 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Worked on the article's neutrality and added two more sources of national recognition. reply
Comment, In fairness to Lorenzo, I am trying to pull up page two and three of the article, where there is further discussion on her work on the hill and a picture of her and His Holiness The Dali Lama. The comment you mention above is the introductory comment in the article, but there is more. With respect to the WP:N requirements, from my understanding, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable and significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. True, the Latina style is not exclusive but certainly it is more than trivial: it is discussing her as one of very few Hispanic women working on Capitol Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 ( talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TI - er - I mean keep. Potential to redirect/merge this elsewhere may be further discussed on the talk page. Sher eth 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Nothing but an unsourced list of apperances for this popular but unlikely-to-be-sourced meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. -- jonny- m t 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Reads like an ad. CWii( Talk| Contribs) 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Wizardman 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability in question since May 2007. Wizardman 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Nandesuka ( talk) 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (although the prod rationale no longer applies). Mexican promoter of extreme fighting, no asserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This page lists only a track listing. It clearly does not define any verifiability or notability and it is borderline speedy deletion. Razor flame 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by WP:CSD#G12 as a blatant copyright violation; of course, without prejudice to the creation of a non-infringing article that otherwise meets inclusion guidelines. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible copyvio - see Runners World link — G716 < T· C> 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible COI as autobiography — G716 < T· C> 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a random list of books about fly fishing. Arbitary list, appears to serve little purpose. J Milburn ( talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, the delete reasons are thin on rationale. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Some very poorly reasoned delete rationales. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, with no disrespect intended. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
May not meet WP:N or WP:BIO1E. Murdered woman, but being murdered alone simply isn't notable, even if media coverage makes it appear notable briefly.-- No More Tears, Baby ( talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) No More Tears, Baby ( talk) 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep - sufficient reliable sources provided to establish notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established — G716 < T· C> 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, the delete rationales are very poor. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparent autobiography with no notability proven — G716 < T· C> 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sher eth 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced autobiography, notability not established. Wizardman 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is of low quality, and no importance. Deadman Undertaker 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G10 -- B ( talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't know exactly what this is. It may be a hoax. And if it is a real person, it isn't notable. It also needs wikify-ing. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a POV fork and a coat-rack article. To the extent material can be reliably sourced and can be written in an NPOV fashion it should appear in Tesco. Future articles such as Allegations concerning when Tesco stopped beating its wife should be speedily deleted as well. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a violation of the neutral point of view by suggesting any and all cases against Tesco are notable, and the cases listed are on the whole not notable with regard to the corporation as a whole, they involve single incidents, or trivial outcomes. The article creation follows on from an aborted attempt to include the list at Tesco, and considering the existence of Criticism of Tesco, is wholly redundant. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). A reasonably clear view from participants that this is a well sourced stub that satisfies the notability criterion. WilliamH ( talk) 12:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Music. Non-notable unreleased single with no sources DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity page for very minor athlete Restepc ( talk) 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Candidate in a congressional election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, G3 as an obvious hoax. Author Liambarnes1234 ( talk · contribs) blocked as well for self-promotion and sockpuppetry. Blueboy 96 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. No G-hits on Liam Barnes w/Simon Cowell. Which show? Certainly not Britain's Got Talent. — ERcheck ( talk) 17:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close per the fact that it's a procedural nomination to discuss a policy implementation that is already occuring in a centralised discussion elsewhere.. naerii - talk 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Please, please limit discussion to notability of towns like Amurn and other suitable AFD concerns. All other discussion should be posted here instead.
Procedural nomination. Several editors at the linked discussion believe towns like Amurn are nonnotable; several believe they are notable. I want to applaud the hard work of fine editors like Fritzpoll, Blofeld of SPECTRE, or Editorofthewiki in making this article possible, as well as the two million articles expected to be structurally similar to it; I have nothing against any of them, nor against the hundreds or thousands of fine Afghanis who live in Amurn, as my comment below shows. I am creating this page solely for the purpose of centralized community discussion on whether towns like Amurn are inherently notable, and I do not expect to participate further.
Please focus your discussion on the two million towns like Amurn, and not Amurn itself, as discussion about Amurn itself will only tend to skew the AFD without providing an answer to the larger and more important question. Please choose among Keep, Merge and redirect, and Delete, as I don't believe other options will be fruitful. JJB 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this is an article about how someone's friend talks - completely unverifiable. Guest9999 ( talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not shown. DimaG ( talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as vandalism by East718, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like a clever hoax, vanispamcruftisement Ziggy Saw dust 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:PORNBIO ninety: one 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Completing unfinished nom for User:NickPenguin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Could possibly go on and on and on and on, is also sort of subjective as who can possibly be a "spoiled brat" or not. Calvin 1998 ( t- c) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7. Blueboy 96 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable (0 ghits) or perhaps hoax band. Possible speedy as WP:BOLLOCKS. Camillus 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article basicly teaches which wikipedia cannot accept. Hellboy2hell ( talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (note that there does not appear to have been a first nomination Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. it is about a small online multiplayer league (the racing-game equivalent of a clan or guild) for the particular game, and isn't notable.
KeepThis is notable because it is ti my knoeledge the only N4 Series still in existance and also one of the few places where N4 support is availibe. N4GORS has about 50 drivers T18 ( talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)T18 reply
comment Maybe we could merge this with the N4 page? T18 ( talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Rjd0060 ( talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
per 10LBHAMMERSLAW - unreleased album with no sources Sceptre ( talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted speedily into the dustbin of copy and paste editing, G12. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but not every book is notable. There is no attempt to say anything that distinguishes this from any others, and it has been tagged for notability since October. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A disputed speedy where notability was asserted. To me, this seems to be a classic example of WP:BIO1E; even if this event is notable, and I don't for a moment suggest that it is, I can't accept that the young person involved is even remotely notable. However, the article's creator makes enough of a case that I have brought it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Vanity article mostly written by the subject, JoshWiniberg ( talk · contribs). The only reference it gives is his official biography... amazingly this article has lasted 2 years. There is no media coverage apparently... this needs to be deleted unless sources are found and it's shown he meets WP:BIO. Rividian ( talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect to Jason McCoy. -- jonny- m t 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no info on this album online. 8 hits on Google, no All Music Guide listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-yet-released single, fails WP:CRYSTAL, no independent sources. Was prodded, prod removed by anon. Huon ( talk) 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article for a soap character that will appear in a month! Prod declined, I left some days but no new information came. Only speculations about character's family name. I think the editor who created can add it in its sandbox and wait until character appears and until article is notable enough. Right now fails notability. Magioladitis ( talk) 11:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone who appeared on and didn't win Britain's Got Talent. Buc ( talk) 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Rage
The result was delete. The strongest argument - that the substantive content of this article is duplicated at Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict - has not been disproven. 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am renominating this list for deletion because in my view the list is a POV fork that is inherently incapable of ever achieving a NPOV. (The list is essentially a collection of newspaper reports about alleged PKK attacks on civilians, despite the title, and as a list is not capable of ever being anything more than that.) There are a number of reasons for this, but most specifically this is because with 37,000+ deaths attributed to the Turkish-PKK conflict to date any list of individual incidents causing casualties will inevitably be either highly selective, or alternatively, far too huge for an encyclopaedic list. There is therefore no chance whatsoever that this list will ever be able to avoid claims of an over-emphasis on one side or the other.
At the previous deletion debate comparisons were made between lists on the IRA and ETA, however such comparisons are flawed because the Turkish-PKK conflict is occurring on a significantly larger scale with significantly higher casualty figures, and involving regular, sometimes indiscriminate military-scale activity by both sides. The IRA and ETA conflicts are also significantly better documented by independent commentators.
A fundamental lack of reliable sources on which to base content means that it is also practically impossible for this list to achieve a reasonably encyclopaedic standard of quality at any point in the foreseeable future. For a start, the vast bulk of likely source material is the Turkish language press. The Turkish press, however, cannot be considered reliable when it comes to reporting on the conflict because of a clear conflict of clear conflict of interest, not to mention significant legal restrictions on what they can and can’t report. Consequently, and inevitably, Kurdish casualties of the conflict will be under-reported and Turkish casualties over-reported. (See further discussion on the list's talk page.) Almost all the sources in the list simply report at face value Turkish military announcements, while independent verification of these claims is virtually impossible. In addition, strict restrictions on Kurdish language reporting almost guarantee that we’ll only ever get one side of the conflict. Further discussion of these issues can be found on the list's talk page. Note also, that the list has been tagged for POV since March (in addition to other tags removed and reinstated over the past two years) and it hasn’t been touched except by an IP and the SpellingBot.
The previous deletion debate for this list revolved primarily around POV concerns, and at the conclusion at the time was to rename the list, from "Civilian casualties caused by PKK" to "Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict". In the two years since that nomination the list remains almost entirely the POV fork it was at the time of its original afd nomination.
I considered the list as a merger candidate, but all substantive information from this list is already covered more than adequately in the main article Turkish-PKK conflict, not to mention a significantly better account of the same information in Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict.
nb. This argument should not be taken to mean that all information on the conflict is problematic, only the specific category of material that this particular list is intended to compile. The only possible way to document casualties without POV issues is to report raw numbers from independent third parties, such as Amnesty International, in article format rather than the arbitrary specifics of this list. Debate ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment to closing admin. Maybe this can be relisted for further comment? I suspect that the more complex argument here doesn't invite the standard "delete NN/keep N" voting-style response common to the more obvious afds, so contributions have been a been a bit light-on despite Deniz and my lengthy contributions. It would be good, however, to get some feedback on the actual grounds of the nomination. :) Debate ( talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. With the exception of Potatoswatter, the "keep" opinions do not discuss the applicable inclusion policies and guidelines, or make any other non-weak argument. Sandstein 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Although this article was just created, I am bringing thhis straight to afd because it was just recently delted through a PROD. I'll repeat the original prodder's concerns - this article is problematic due to WP:MEMORIAL and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Small political newsletter of extremely local distribution, no sources, no indication that it has any readership. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Alleged spin-off from Australian Idol. Crystal ballery at best. Probably an hoax. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Per WP:N and WP:V. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This does not meet notability. This isn't exactly Two Girls One Cup. The article is poorly written, with only two paragraphs. There is nothing about this thing that warrants an article about it. Plasma Twa 2 06:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Billiards game stated in article have been invented by three brothers while bored at work. The game's website, where it is being sold, confirms this as well. A Google search for the game with and without a space between scratch and ball ( [29], [30]), returns a total of 7 hits, all to the website, the Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia mirrors. I just checked my two massive billiards encyclopedia just the be able to say I did and bupkis. I really didn't need to though. "I've never heard of it" is generally a poor deletion argument but nevertheless, I am a billiard expert, am the majority contributor of Wikipedia's substantive billiard-related content, and I've never heard of it. In sum, this is a non-notable, recently invented, unverifiable game that was made up one day.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge with Apple TV. However, since the content is already present in Apple TV#Modifications and hacks, I'm just going to redirect the page, leaving the history visible. -- jonny- m t 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This 25 year-old web developer doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. His claim to fame, "enabl[ing] the Apple TV to output color through composite video" isn't backed up by reliable sources, so discussion whether that causes him to meet the notabiliby standard doesn't begin. Ghits seem to refer to a boxer with the same name. brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
---
Other than the TUAW publication with regards to the hack (the "claim to fame"), there have been a couple other places and publications which have discussed it, proof that the hack did make a difference for a subset population:
http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/10/12/get-color-output-from-apple-tvs-composite-video-output/
http://asuse3.blogspot.com/2008/03/pon-punto-tu-appletv-parte-3.html
http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA30610/faq_apple_collegabile_tv_non_il_vostro_vecchio.shtml
http://canalapple.com/wordpress/?p=828
http://www.92apple.com/2007/10/08/found-footage-apple-tv-composite-hack-in-full-color/
( a couple more can be found via a quick google search )
However, more interestingly enough, what this hack did was prove that the appletv video card was capable of generating non-hdtv video and quickly after this someone followed with a software method of composite video output, detailed here:
http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Composite
If anything, this "story" should be included into the article for
AppleTV. I agree that there should be a disambiguation page to differentiate from the Boxer (already in existence in spanish:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauricio_Pastrana, perhaps any bilingual wiki'er can help here?) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.150.172.234 (
talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
TUAW is an AOL publication BTW.
Further, this page was originally inspired by this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Hotz&oldid=153453816, which was not marked afd. -srgeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgeek ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. May be recreated as an article about the "two chariots" meaning, if that concept turns out to be notable. Sandstein 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Found "Gender equality" redirected here. It's a made-up word, although one like it does mean "a pair of chariots" in certain ancient contexts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IQI8AAAAMAAJ&q=Zygarchy&dq=Zygarchy&pgis=1
NOR: Google: 3,960,000 = Gender equality; 7,850 = Gender egalitarianism; 358 for "zygarchy" (all hits Wikipedia-based) Yamara ✉ 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author, as are all of the authors associated with Featherproof books, which is also nominated. Corvus cornix talk 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. There are a few mentions in articles here and there, but nothing really about her, just brief mentions of her activities primarily in the context of other topics. -- Kinu t/ c 05:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per an apparent lack of notability. -- jonny- m t 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Massive conflict of interest with article author. I've read this through a dozen times, and it's still really just an advertisement. While this subject does pop up on a Google search, I still can't see that he meets notability requirements. Most of the references are Safa's own books (and one of the references is a Bible verse). Author (whose username is probably a violation of WP:U) twice removed my cleanup tags with no explanation. Overall, a promotional article for a marginally notable subject with huge COI issues. Tan | 39 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I have written this article for Pastor Reza F. Safa. He is a very notable man... It is a biography, that is why they are taken from his own book. If you would like, I can re write the article from a more factual point of view describing his life.. Please work with me here before you delete it. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBNNejattv ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Please give me some time to edit and work on this page. Again thank you very much TBN Nejat TV
Thanks guys! cant wait to hear back from you - TBN Nejat TV
The result was Delete. Ѕandahl 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable book. The article does not demonstrate that the book meets any of the notability criteria at WP:BK and a Google search doesn't provide any reliable sources. Nick Dowling ( talk) 05:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- jonny- m t 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable per
WP:BOOK or
WP:WEB. Seems more like a
WP:ADVERT. Moreover, the article doesn't actually state what this thing actually is confusing "novel" with "game." Non-notable game. Seems more like an advertisement. At the very least it fails
WP:CORP as being released by a non-notable company.
Ave Caesar (
talk) 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)/s
reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong promotional tone, no third-party reliable sources, no assertion of notability; sole author has a COI. KurtRaschke ( talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism, looks to be promotion for Zeitgeist (film); any useful content could apparently be on astrology. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'SPEEDY DELETE' Toddst1 ( talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable game. slakr\ talk / 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a game I am currently in the process of creating, therefore it is not entirely complete. I will finish the editing in time. It began as a joke, hence "hitting a ball with a blunt object," but we decided to give it an objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UPCWSantiago ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under G11. Clearly non-notable, no mention or trace of being notable, insufficient or reliable sourcing, written in a promotional perspective. Rudget ( Help?) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:WEB; I can't find any third party coverage, and the only links in the article are to the site. Likely a case of advertising; the creator is User:4indianwoman. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Campus Crusade for Christ. I'm very hesitant to delete this, as it is the merge target for two previous merges, but I'm not convinced it yet has stand alone notability. Sourcing is the primary issue here, there are none, and I've done several searches as well as several editors here. I can't find anything other than passing mentions, "press release" type pseudo-articles, and stuff about the Intelligent Design debate of which they are a party to. They are probably notable, but if not verifiable, then not a standalone article. I'll add the merge template to the article, but I'm not doing the merge. The article needs to be trimmed down severely as it is overly detailed with minutia/unsourced assertions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No indications of notability apparent Richard001 ( talk) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolute crystalballery. The author claims a picture in Nintendo Power that reads "KH3" can be interpreted as a reliable source saying the game has been announced, and removed the prod calling it "vandalism". JuJube ( talk) 03:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable writer, as are all of the writers associated with Featherproof books which is itself nominated for deletion. Corvus cornix talk 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Has published one book from a non-notable micro-press, Featherproof books, which is going down in flames on an AfD at this very moment. His book fails WP:BK and he fails WP:BIO Qworty ( talk) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to spambot. Sandstein 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed without comment. This is a generalised term with many different meanings. For example this, this and this. There is no reliable source ascribing the very precise description in this page and even the cited link doesn't use this term. Fails WP:V. Delete. Smile a While ( talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Completely unsourced, and far too game-guide-y to merge in toto. To the extent that the topic is relevant to Pokémon Red and Blue and can be reliably sourced, editors may choose to add information about this topic to that article. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Largely original research with no good sources or verifiability. A single glitch from Pokémon Red and Blue. This page was recently redirect. Artichoker ( talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Hmm... so what do I find, but Artichoker automatically reverting my edits of the templates, along with a "polite" auto-response to my use page saying I need to give valid reasons. Never mind that I gave reasons in the edit description, in the Glitch City discussion page, and here. MKULTRA333 ( talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The last version of the Red/Blue page to mention the glitches is here [50]. I think that section, while adequate on most counts, fails to say enough about Glitch City, so I've made a new version of the Glitches section over on my sandbox. See my suggested merge section here [51]
To this point my discussions with another editor on this subject have been less than productive. All I get are threats of warnings and accusations of vandalism, plus reverts, at every turn. I really would like to put that in the past. We obviously disagree, but I want the articles to be interesting and valuable just as much as anyone else. Notability for an article subsection is not the issue that it is for the article itself. As the page on notability itself explains, "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements." I also think the "in-universe" and "fiction" tags are being applied too liberally. Given that this is the discussion of effects found in a computer game, short descriptions of how the player gets there and what they see are unavoidable.
So if possible, and if a Merge is decided as the best option, avoiding a war of attrition over the content of the merge would be great. MKULTRA333 ( talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as copyvio of http://www.utmc.gov.uk/udg/index.htm (per Google cache). Sandstein 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable working group of UK Department for Transport ninety: one 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The continued allowance of an article to occupy an entry on Wikipedia demands the presentation of neutral, third-party reliable sources to support notability; to cut straight to the core of this debate, no such sources have been provided.
Anthøny 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I honestly don't understand this article at all. It is a stub composed of with pretty bad grammar, and has no references to merit notability. A Google search provided me little information about this person as well. Tavix ( talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
In spite of the last changes made to this article after it was nominated and discussed for the first time, it keeps being just an auto-promoting entry of a not notable architect. maxat ( talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and redirected to Tennis ball -- JForget 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things you made up at college. I can't find anything other than the linked article by the college newspaper. Fails WP:NOT WP:NOTE WP:RS LegoTech·( t)·( c) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy redirect to Graney class submarine. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
duplicate of Graney class submarine mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was closed after speedy deletion as hoax. Bduke ( talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
From the content and the lack of sources I suspect the article is a hoax but even if it isn't the reliable sources on which a verifiable article could be based do not seem to exist. Guest9999 ( talk) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close and redirect to Lada class submarine. Redirects are cheap, use them. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
already exists as Lada class submarine mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete This was prodded by another user for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia "and was removed by an anon IP (who has not made any edits besides this so far) with no explanation. I considered reverting this edit, but I wasn't sure if this goes against policy, so I'm nominating it for deletion on AFD instead. CyberGhostface ( talk) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising. Salted against re-creation. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about an apparently-defunct website, insufficient evidence of notability given, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. the only reference given that was independent of the website does not mention its name anywhere in the article text. Posting this article, and creating a link to it from the amateur pornography article was the sole contribution of the user in question. The Anome ( talk) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is basically a dictionary definition for a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tavix ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to have an article at this time.-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Previously deleted, mostly promotional article about an ad-driven search engine. Only external ref is a couple of words in a Wall St Journal piece reprinted in one of the subject's own blogs. Deiz talk 23:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Kkkkkkkkkeep as Claudius might have said. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreleased film, very little verifiable info outside IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as non-notable. -- jonny- m t 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
According to IMBD (not even a reliabe source), which is the only reference provided by the article, there's no evidence that this actress meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article was a section that was copied from a now-deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York). Subject matter is essentially bogus; no reliably sourced evidence exists that "Castle" is a name for this zip code, and zip codes are not a basic unit for US census data. Although earlier PROD template was removed with a note saying "notable per ghits, secondary and third party sources are abundant", the article still does not cite those "abundant sources". (Furthermore, ghits don't confer notability, not to mention that I can't find many ghits.) Orlady ( talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I am also nominating the following related page for identical reasons:
The result was Speedy keep, nom effectively withdrew. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Single book does not this person notable — G716 < T· C> 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- jonny- m t 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy deletion (G12). Though there was no copyright notice on the exact page the content was copied from, there are copyright notices throughout the website. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced personal essay. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a brief repetition of plot elements from a two part episode from Star Trek the Next Generation, and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about a living person convicted of murder; currently only sourced to one news story. Other than the salacious and dramatic nature of the crime, I can't figure out why this individual is considered notable (any more so than any other violent criminal) -- unlike, say, the vaguely similar Lorena Bobbitt case, this crime does not seem to have entered mainstream coverage or the popular imagination. Apparently the trial caused some comment when the prosecuters reenacted the crime, but I can't find too much about that -- Lexis-Nexis has only three items, two of which are records from the court and one a quick AP story. Searching on her full name, there are only 67 google hits, many of which are Wikipedia mirrors; a search of the database "America's Newspapers" (library subscription only, covers the national press) comes up with only 16 stories, most from local (Texas) papers. While clearly this incident happened, the article seems unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, and as it stands a violation of the BLP policy. Though I'm generally inclusionist, this seems like an area in which to particularly take care with what articles we include. NB: if the decision is to keep, I'll stub and source it as best I'm able, but the results seem likely to be unsatisfactory. phoebe / ( talk) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a non-notable person. If anyone wishes to work on a userfied version, please let me know and I will supply the text. -- jonny- m t 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable person who gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. — Lincolnite ( talk) 20:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Secondary source was added on Lorenzo. Article from a National magazine. Links just need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.153 ( talk) 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Worked on the article's neutrality and added two more sources of national recognition. reply
Comment, In fairness to Lorenzo, I am trying to pull up page two and three of the article, where there is further discussion on her work on the hill and a picture of her and His Holiness The Dali Lama. The comment you mention above is the introductory comment in the article, but there is more. With respect to the WP:N requirements, from my understanding, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable and significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. True, the Latina style is not exclusive but certainly it is more than trivial: it is discussing her as one of very few Hispanic women working on Capitol Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 ( talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TI - er - I mean keep. Potential to redirect/merge this elsewhere may be further discussed on the talk page. Sher eth 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Nothing but an unsourced list of apperances for this popular but unlikely-to-be-sourced meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11. -- jonny- m t 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Reads like an ad. CWii( Talk| Contribs) 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Wizardman 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability in question since May 2007. Wizardman 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Nandesuka ( talk) 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (although the prod rationale no longer applies). Mexican promoter of extreme fighting, no asserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb- Me• MyEars• MyMouth-timed 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This page lists only a track listing. It clearly does not define any verifiability or notability and it is borderline speedy deletion. Razor flame 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedily deleted by WP:CSD#G12 as a blatant copyright violation; of course, without prejudice to the creation of a non-infringing article that otherwise meets inclusion guidelines. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible copyvio - see Runners World link — G716 < T· C> 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable, possible COI as autobiography — G716 < T· C> 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Appears to be a random list of books about fly fishing. Arbitary list, appears to serve little purpose. J Milburn ( talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, the delete reasons are thin on rationale. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Some very poorly reasoned delete rationales. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete, with no disrespect intended. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
May not meet WP:N or WP:BIO1E. Murdered woman, but being murdered alone simply isn't notable, even if media coverage makes it appear notable briefly.-- No More Tears, Baby ( talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) No More Tears, Baby ( talk) 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep - sufficient reliable sources provided to establish notability. Spartaz Humbug! 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability not established — G716 < T· C> 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep, the delete rationales are very poor. (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable — G716 < T· C> 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Apparent autobiography with no notability proven — G716 < T· C> 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sher eth 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unsourced autobiography, notability not established. Wizardman 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is of low quality, and no importance. Deadman Undertaker 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete G10 -- B ( talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I don't know exactly what this is. It may be a hoax. And if it is a real person, it isn't notable. It also needs wikify-ing. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as a POV fork and a coat-rack article. To the extent material can be reliably sourced and can be written in an NPOV fashion it should appear in Tesco. Future articles such as Allegations concerning when Tesco stopped beating its wife should be speedily deleted as well. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The article is a violation of the neutral point of view by suggesting any and all cases against Tesco are notable, and the cases listed are on the whole not notable with regard to the corporation as a whole, they involve single incidents, or trivial outcomes. The article creation follows on from an aborted attempt to include the list at Tesco, and considering the existence of Criticism of Tesco, is wholly redundant. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). A reasonably clear view from participants that this is a well sourced stub that satisfies the notability criterion. WilliamH ( talk) 12:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:Music. Non-notable unreleased single with no sources DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable vanity page for very minor athlete Restepc ( talk) 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Candidate in a congressional election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, G3 as an obvious hoax. Author Liambarnes1234 ( talk · contribs) blocked as well for self-promotion and sockpuppetry. Blueboy 96 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Unverifiable. No G-hits on Liam Barnes w/Simon Cowell. Which show? Certainly not Britain's Got Talent. — ERcheck ( talk) 17:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close per the fact that it's a procedural nomination to discuss a policy implementation that is already occuring in a centralised discussion elsewhere.. naerii - talk 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Please, please limit discussion to notability of towns like Amurn and other suitable AFD concerns. All other discussion should be posted here instead.
Procedural nomination. Several editors at the linked discussion believe towns like Amurn are nonnotable; several believe they are notable. I want to applaud the hard work of fine editors like Fritzpoll, Blofeld of SPECTRE, or Editorofthewiki in making this article possible, as well as the two million articles expected to be structurally similar to it; I have nothing against any of them, nor against the hundreds or thousands of fine Afghanis who live in Amurn, as my comment below shows. I am creating this page solely for the purpose of centralized community discussion on whether towns like Amurn are inherently notable, and I do not expect to participate further.
Please focus your discussion on the two million towns like Amurn, and not Amurn itself, as discussion about Amurn itself will only tend to skew the AFD without providing an answer to the larger and more important question. Please choose among Keep, Merge and redirect, and Delete, as I don't believe other options will be fruitful. JJB 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
As far as I can tell this is an article about how someone's friend talks - completely unverifiable. Guest9999 ( talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED ( talk) 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Notability is not shown. DimaG ( talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete as vandalism by East718, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Looks like a clever hoax, vanispamcruftisement Ziggy Saw dust 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
fails WP:PORNBIO ninety: one 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Completing unfinished nom for User:NickPenguin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Could possibly go on and on and on and on, is also sort of subjective as who can possibly be a "spoiled brat" or not. Calvin 1998 ( t- c) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete, A7. Blueboy 96 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable (0 ghits) or perhaps hoax band. Possible speedy as WP:BOLLOCKS. Camillus 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. PhilKnight ( talk) 16:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article basicly teaches which wikipedia cannot accept. Hellboy2hell ( talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete (note that there does not appear to have been a first nomination Spartaz Humbug! 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. it is about a small online multiplayer league (the racing-game equivalent of a clan or guild) for the particular game, and isn't notable.
KeepThis is notable because it is ti my knoeledge the only N4 Series still in existance and also one of the few places where N4 support is availibe. N4GORS has about 50 drivers T18 ( talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)T18 reply
comment Maybe we could merge this with the N4 page? T18 ( talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Rjd0060 ( talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
per 10LBHAMMERSLAW - unreleased album with no sources Sceptre ( talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Deleted speedily into the dustbin of copy and paste editing, G12. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I'm sorry, but not every book is notable. There is no attempt to say anything that distinguishes this from any others, and it has been tagged for notability since October. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
A disputed speedy where notability was asserted. To me, this seems to be a classic example of WP:BIO1E; even if this event is notable, and I don't for a moment suggest that it is, I can't accept that the young person involved is even remotely notable. However, the article's creator makes enough of a case that I have brought it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste: talk 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Vanity article mostly written by the subject, JoshWiniberg ( talk · contribs). The only reference it gives is his official biography... amazingly this article has lasted 2 years. There is no media coverage apparently... this needs to be deleted unless sources are found and it's shown he meets WP:BIO. Rividian ( talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete and redirect to Jason McCoy. -- jonny- m t 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolutely no info on this album online. 8 hits on Google, no All Music Guide listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not-yet-released single, fails WP:CRYSTAL, no independent sources. Was prodded, prod removed by anon. Huon ( talk) 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier ( talk) 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article for a soap character that will appear in a month! Prod declined, I left some days but no new information came. Only speculations about character's family name. I think the editor who created can add it in its sandbox and wait until character appears and until article is notable enough. Right now fails notability. Magioladitis ( talk) 11:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Someone who appeared on and didn't win Britain's Got Talent. Buc ( talk) 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Rage
The result was delete. The strongest argument - that the substantive content of this article is duplicated at Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict - has not been disproven. 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am renominating this list for deletion because in my view the list is a POV fork that is inherently incapable of ever achieving a NPOV. (The list is essentially a collection of newspaper reports about alleged PKK attacks on civilians, despite the title, and as a list is not capable of ever being anything more than that.) There are a number of reasons for this, but most specifically this is because with 37,000+ deaths attributed to the Turkish-PKK conflict to date any list of individual incidents causing casualties will inevitably be either highly selective, or alternatively, far too huge for an encyclopaedic list. There is therefore no chance whatsoever that this list will ever be able to avoid claims of an over-emphasis on one side or the other.
At the previous deletion debate comparisons were made between lists on the IRA and ETA, however such comparisons are flawed because the Turkish-PKK conflict is occurring on a significantly larger scale with significantly higher casualty figures, and involving regular, sometimes indiscriminate military-scale activity by both sides. The IRA and ETA conflicts are also significantly better documented by independent commentators.
A fundamental lack of reliable sources on which to base content means that it is also practically impossible for this list to achieve a reasonably encyclopaedic standard of quality at any point in the foreseeable future. For a start, the vast bulk of likely source material is the Turkish language press. The Turkish press, however, cannot be considered reliable when it comes to reporting on the conflict because of a clear conflict of clear conflict of interest, not to mention significant legal restrictions on what they can and can’t report. Consequently, and inevitably, Kurdish casualties of the conflict will be under-reported and Turkish casualties over-reported. (See further discussion on the list's talk page.) Almost all the sources in the list simply report at face value Turkish military announcements, while independent verification of these claims is virtually impossible. In addition, strict restrictions on Kurdish language reporting almost guarantee that we’ll only ever get one side of the conflict. Further discussion of these issues can be found on the list's talk page. Note also, that the list has been tagged for POV since March (in addition to other tags removed and reinstated over the past two years) and it hasn’t been touched except by an IP and the SpellingBot.
The previous deletion debate for this list revolved primarily around POV concerns, and at the conclusion at the time was to rename the list, from "Civilian casualties caused by PKK" to "Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict". In the two years since that nomination the list remains almost entirely the POV fork it was at the time of its original afd nomination.
I considered the list as a merger candidate, but all substantive information from this list is already covered more than adequately in the main article Turkish-PKK conflict, not to mention a significantly better account of the same information in Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict.
nb. This argument should not be taken to mean that all information on the conflict is problematic, only the specific category of material that this particular list is intended to compile. The only possible way to document casualties without POV issues is to report raw numbers from independent third parties, such as Amnesty International, in article format rather than the arbitrary specifics of this list. Debate ( talk) 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment to closing admin. Maybe this can be relisted for further comment? I suspect that the more complex argument here doesn't invite the standard "delete NN/keep N" voting-style response common to the more obvious afds, so contributions have been a been a bit light-on despite Deniz and my lengthy contributions. It would be good, however, to get some feedback on the actual grounds of the nomination. :) Debate ( talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. With the exception of Potatoswatter, the "keep" opinions do not discuss the applicable inclusion policies and guidelines, or make any other non-weak argument. Sandstein 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Although this article was just created, I am bringing thhis straight to afd because it was just recently delted through a PROD. I'll repeat the original prodder's concerns - this article is problematic due to WP:MEMORIAL and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Spartaz Humbug! 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Small political newsletter of extremely local distribution, no sources, no indication that it has any readership. Matthew Brown (Morven) ( T: C) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Alleged spin-off from Australian Idol. Crystal ballery at best. Probably an hoax. — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete Per WP:N and WP:V. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This does not meet notability. This isn't exactly Two Girls One Cup. The article is poorly written, with only two paragraphs. There is nothing about this thing that warrants an article about it. Plasma Twa 2 06:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Billiards game stated in article have been invented by three brothers while bored at work. The game's website, where it is being sold, confirms this as well. A Google search for the game with and without a space between scratch and ball ( [29], [30]), returns a total of 7 hits, all to the website, the Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia mirrors. I just checked my two massive billiards encyclopedia just the be able to say I did and bupkis. I really didn't need to though. "I've never heard of it" is generally a poor deletion argument but nevertheless, I am a billiard expert, am the majority contributor of Wikipedia's substantive billiard-related content, and I've never heard of it. In sum, this is a non-notable, recently invented, unverifiable game that was made up one day.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was merge with Apple TV. However, since the content is already present in Apple TV#Modifications and hacks, I'm just going to redirect the page, leaving the history visible. -- jonny- m t 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This 25 year-old web developer doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. His claim to fame, "enabl[ing] the Apple TV to output color through composite video" isn't backed up by reliable sources, so discussion whether that causes him to meet the notabiliby standard doesn't begin. Ghits seem to refer to a boxer with the same name. brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
---
Other than the TUAW publication with regards to the hack (the "claim to fame"), there have been a couple other places and publications which have discussed it, proof that the hack did make a difference for a subset population:
http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/10/12/get-color-output-from-apple-tvs-composite-video-output/
http://asuse3.blogspot.com/2008/03/pon-punto-tu-appletv-parte-3.html
http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA30610/faq_apple_collegabile_tv_non_il_vostro_vecchio.shtml
http://canalapple.com/wordpress/?p=828
http://www.92apple.com/2007/10/08/found-footage-apple-tv-composite-hack-in-full-color/
( a couple more can be found via a quick google search )
However, more interestingly enough, what this hack did was prove that the appletv video card was capable of generating non-hdtv video and quickly after this someone followed with a software method of composite video output, detailed here:
http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Composite
If anything, this "story" should be included into the article for
AppleTV. I agree that there should be a disambiguation page to differentiate from the Boxer (already in existence in spanish:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauricio_Pastrana, perhaps any bilingual wiki'er can help here?) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.150.172.234 (
talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
reply
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
TUAW is an AOL publication BTW.
Further, this page was originally inspired by this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=George_Hotz&oldid=153453816, which was not marked afd. -srgeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgeek ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. May be recreated as an article about the "two chariots" meaning, if that concept turns out to be notable. Sandstein 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Found "Gender equality" redirected here. It's a made-up word, although one like it does mean "a pair of chariots" in certain ancient contexts.
http://books.google.com/books?id=IQI8AAAAMAAJ&q=Zygarchy&dq=Zygarchy&pgis=1
NOR: Google: 3,960,000 = Gender equality; 7,850 = Gender egalitarianism; 358 for "zygarchy" (all hits Wikipedia-based) Yamara ✉ 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable author, as are all of the authors associated with Featherproof books, which is also nominated. Corvus cornix talk 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was - Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. There are a few mentions in articles here and there, but nothing really about her, just brief mentions of her activities primarily in the context of other topics. -- Kinu t/ c 05:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete per an apparent lack of notability. -- jonny- m t 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Massive conflict of interest with article author. I've read this through a dozen times, and it's still really just an advertisement. While this subject does pop up on a Google search, I still can't see that he meets notability requirements. Most of the references are Safa's own books (and one of the references is a Bible verse). Author (whose username is probably a violation of WP:U) twice removed my cleanup tags with no explanation. Overall, a promotional article for a marginally notable subject with huge COI issues. Tan | 39 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I have written this article for Pastor Reza F. Safa. He is a very notable man... It is a biography, that is why they are taken from his own book. If you would like, I can re write the article from a more factual point of view describing his life.. Please work with me here before you delete it. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBNNejattv ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Please give me some time to edit and work on this page. Again thank you very much TBN Nejat TV
Thanks guys! cant wait to hear back from you - TBN Nejat TV
The result was Delete. Ѕandahl 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This appears to be a non-notable book. The article does not demonstrate that the book meets any of the notability criteria at WP:BK and a Google search doesn't provide any reliable sources. Nick Dowling ( talk) 05:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. -- jonny- m t 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete not notable per
WP:BOOK or
WP:WEB. Seems more like a
WP:ADVERT. Moreover, the article doesn't actually state what this thing actually is confusing "novel" with "game." Non-notable game. Seems more like an advertisement. At the very least it fails
WP:CORP as being released by a non-notable company.
Ave Caesar (
talk) 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)/s
reply
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Strong promotional tone, no third-party reliable sources, no assertion of notability; sole author has a COI. KurtRaschke ( talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable neologism, looks to be promotion for Zeitgeist (film); any useful content could apparently be on astrology. - Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was 'SPEEDY DELETE' Toddst1 ( talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable game. slakr\ talk / 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is a game I am currently in the process of creating, therefore it is not entirely complete. I will finish the editing in time. It began as a joke, hence "hitting a ball with a blunt object," but we decided to give it an objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UPCWSantiago ( talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete under G11. Clearly non-notable, no mention or trace of being notable, insufficient or reliable sourcing, written in a promotional perspective. Rudget ( Help?) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Not notable per WP:WEB; I can't find any third party coverage, and the only links in the article are to the site. Likely a case of advertising; the creator is User:4indianwoman. JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Merge to Campus Crusade for Christ. I'm very hesitant to delete this, as it is the merge target for two previous merges, but I'm not convinced it yet has stand alone notability. Sourcing is the primary issue here, there are none, and I've done several searches as well as several editors here. I can't find anything other than passing mentions, "press release" type pseudo-articles, and stuff about the Intelligent Design debate of which they are a party to. They are probably notable, but if not verifiable, then not a standalone article. I'll add the merge template to the article, but I'm not doing the merge. The article needs to be trimmed down severely as it is overly detailed with minutia/unsourced assertions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
No indications of notability apparent Richard001 ( talk) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Absolute crystalballery. The author claims a picture in Nintendo Power that reads "KH3" can be interpreted as a reliable source saying the game has been announced, and removed the prod calling it "vandalism". JuJube ( talk) 03:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Non-notable writer, as are all of the writers associated with Featherproof books which is itself nominated for deletion. Corvus cornix talk 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Has published one book from a non-notable micro-press, Featherproof books, which is going down in flames on an AfD at this very moment. His book fails WP:BK and he fails WP:BIO Qworty ( talk) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to spambot. Sandstein 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Prod removed without comment. This is a generalised term with many different meanings. For example this, this and this. There is no reliable source ascribing the very precise description in this page and even the cited link doesn't use this term. Fails WP:V. Delete. Smile a While ( talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Completely unsourced, and far too game-guide-y to merge in toto. To the extent that the topic is relevant to Pokémon Red and Blue and can be reliably sourced, editors may choose to add information about this topic to that article. Nandesuka ( talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Largely original research with no good sources or verifiability. A single glitch from Pokémon Red and Blue. This page was recently redirect. Artichoker ( talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Hmm... so what do I find, but Artichoker automatically reverting my edits of the templates, along with a "polite" auto-response to my use page saying I need to give valid reasons. Never mind that I gave reasons in the edit description, in the Glitch City discussion page, and here. MKULTRA333 ( talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The last version of the Red/Blue page to mention the glitches is here [50]. I think that section, while adequate on most counts, fails to say enough about Glitch City, so I've made a new version of the Glitches section over on my sandbox. See my suggested merge section here [51]
To this point my discussions with another editor on this subject have been less than productive. All I get are threats of warnings and accusations of vandalism, plus reverts, at every turn. I really would like to put that in the past. We obviously disagree, but I want the articles to be interesting and valuable just as much as anyone else. Notability for an article subsection is not the issue that it is for the article itself. As the page on notability itself explains, "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements." I also think the "in-universe" and "fiction" tags are being applied too liberally. Given that this is the discussion of effects found in a computer game, short descriptions of how the player gets there and what they see are unavoidable.
So if possible, and if a Merge is decided as the best option, avoiding a war of attrition over the content of the merge would be great. MKULTRA333 ( talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete as copyvio of http://www.utmc.gov.uk/udg/index.htm (per Google cache). Sandstein 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
non-notable working group of UK Department for Transport ninety: one 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. The continued allowance of an article to occupy an entry on Wikipedia demands the presentation of neutral, third-party reliable sources to support notability; to cut straight to the core of this debate, no such sources have been provided.
Anthøny 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply
I honestly don't understand this article at all. It is a stub composed of with pretty bad grammar, and has no references to merit notability. A Google search provided me little information about this person as well. Tavix ( talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
In spite of the last changes made to this article after it was nominated and discussed for the first time, it keeps being just an auto-promoting entry of a not notable architect. maxat ( talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete and redirected to Tennis ball -- JForget 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not for things you made up at college. I can't find anything other than the linked article by the college newspaper. Fails WP:NOT WP:NOTE WP:RS LegoTech·( t)·( c) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy redirect to Graney class submarine. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
duplicate of Graney class submarine mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was closed after speedy deletion as hoax. Bduke ( talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
From the content and the lack of sources I suspect the article is a hoax but even if it isn't the reliable sources on which a verifiable article could be based do not seem to exist. Guest9999 ( talk) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close and redirect to Lada class submarine. Redirects are cheap, use them. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
already exists as Lada class submarine mrg3105 ( comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Delete This was prodded by another user for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia "and was removed by an anon IP (who has not made any edits besides this so far) with no explanation. I considered reverting this edit, but I wasn't sure if this goes against policy, so I'm nominating it for deletion on AFD instead. CyberGhostface ( talk) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising. Salted against re-creation. -- The Anome ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
Article about an apparently-defunct website, insufficient evidence of notability given, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. the only reference given that was independent of the website does not mention its name anywhere in the article text. Posting this article, and creating a link to it from the amateur pornography article was the sole contribution of the user in question. The Anome ( talk) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 ( talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC) reply
This is basically a dictionary definition for a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tavix ( talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC) reply