< 31 January | 2 February > |
---|
The result was Speedy keep Bad faith nom by user who had several insurance articles deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Blantant advertising South Bay ( talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This person seems to be a minor professional tennis player and coach. A Google search turns up a few hits, but nothing substantial on the subject. I know next to nothing about tennis, but I imagine there are thousands of minor professional tennis players in the world. He does have his own website, which means very little. (I have my own website too.) If anyone can prove notability, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. ••• Life of Riley ( talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song, no sources. Seems too obscure to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep bad faith nom. WP:SNOW (non admin close) Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
violates WP:Spam South Bay ( talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources back up almost none of the info. Album was unreleased and hasn't been written about in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. [1] ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail
WP:MUSICBIO by not having at least two albums. No reliable sources in English provided.. -- Mufka
(u)
(t)
(c) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn - taking your collective word for it that notability is established in the non-English sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Clearly notable. WP:SOFIXIT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Blantant advertising South Bay ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Quest (gaming). Icewedge ( talk) 06:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article was prodded, and prod was deleted, so taking it to AFD. Article appears to have little or no content beyond what could appear (or appears) in other more notable articles. Plastikspork ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC). reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G6 (non-controversial cleanup). This was clearly a mistake, and the archive has been created at the correct location: Talk:KPFA/Archive 1. — TKD:: Talk 23:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a charming little dicdef of an article, but it seems completely unverifiable (no Google hits apart from mirrors) and is probably not notable anyway. -- N Shar ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No reviews or other third-party reliable sources could be found from which to presume notability. I was only able to find a rather trivial mention at The Comics Reporter. The author, Haruto Umezawa, may be notable for another series, Hareluya II Boy, which was adapted into a television series, but I haven't been able to find any more information on it. Farix ( Talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Protologism with little to no assertion of notability. Xenocide Talk| Contributions 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to SWR Sound Corporation. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Erm, it's a bass guitar cabinet. No way this is notable enough for inclusion on an encyclopedia. GARDEN 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G12. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research Patton t/ c 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. No tours, no notable label, no reviews etc... Fails WP:MUSIC on all levels. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn and nominated for speedy deletion (db-web, CSD A7). Politizer talk/ contribs 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a single webpage (not website, just page—a recent top-100 list) that does nothing but repeat the contents of the list. Therefore, there is no room for development or improvement, and the article itself is nothing but a regurgitation of IGN's own point of view. (Note: prod was contested by article creator.) Politizer talk/ contribs 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
A random list of photos and directions to temples without any references or claims to notability. The article was deleted on a PROD because of WP:NOT#IINFO, and then recreated identically, which I'll take as a belated objection to the PROD. As it is, it is a FORK from the identical section in Nandyal#Nava_Nandis (an article with a different set of problems). I am skeptical on the question of whether there is notability or a potential article here (only 111 ghits), but an editor wanting to create a Navanandi article would have to dump this one and start from scratch anyway; there's not even anything to reduce to a stub. THF ( talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Lego Group as per previous AfD, and I have protected the redirect too. Black Kite 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site...thing. Cited only to the site itself; no indication of third-party coverage. Also stylistically incoherent. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Absolutely no coverage in reliable third party sources has been demonstrated; there's virtually unanimous consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough for inclusion — this has even been admitted by those who said the article shouldn't be deleted. This point can not be ignored, even though some may find this article interesting, useful, nice or whatever. After all, there's a clear consensus that the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion — nothing else matters in the end. — Aitias // discussion 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable manga series that was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump for just over 5 months. No reviews or other coverage by third-party reliable source could be found. Author appears to be non-notable with only a series of non-notable one-shots to his credits. Farix ( Talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Original research, non-notable subject. Very few ghits (see here). Most of the article is actually about the bystander effect, which already has its own article, the rest is an OR essay. andy ( talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this article is a hoax. It relies for its notability and verifiability upon the March 2004 edition of Linguist, the periodical of the International Linguistics Association.
I have some problems with the jpeg purporting to show the cover of the magazine:
1. I cannot find an "International Linguistics Association". I can only find an "International Linguistic Assocation" [3]. They seem to get called the "International Linguistics Association" a lot, e.g. [4] and [5]. There are lots of Google hits for "International Linguistics Association" but when you follow any link on them to the actual organisation you end up at the "International Linguistic Assocation" website. But I wouldn't expect them to get the name wrong on their own publication!
2. The International Linguistic Assocation publishes a periodical, but it is called The Word, not Linguist. You can see what the 2004 issues contained here [6] Even this site manages to use the "International Linguistics Assocation" name!
3. There is a magazine called The Linguist. It is the publication of the (British) Chartered Institute of Linguists. You can see the cover here [7] and the contents of previous issues here [8]. I find it hard to believe that an international linguists association would give their magazine the same name as the one published by the official British professional linguists body.
4.If I type the bar code into the GSI database [9] then it complains that there are the wrong number of digits. It tells me that Key GTIN must be 8, 12, 13 or 14 digits long. Scanning the Universal Product Code article (pun intended) I think the bar code on the magazine is missing its first and last digits.
Eliminating the magazine, then all I can see on the web that might support the article is the definiton in the Urban Dictionary [10] (which it appears anyone can edit, although unlike Wikipedia they don't appear to ask for references); and search terms such as "parfact worcestershire" and "parfact cryptolect" on Google only find Wikipedia clones. Jll ( talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
••• Life of Riley ( talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is a neologism. Did a search and cannot find reliable secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article could be written. Article was previously proposed for deletion in 2008 and deleted then so am bringing it to AFD as the only remaining option Davewild ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NFT applies here. Zero gnews hits for the sport or the governing body (and zero non-wiki ghits for the governing body). Thousands of ghits for the "sport", but most are simply using crazy as an adjective to describe a ping pong video (and many of the ghits predate the supposed first date of play.) Prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable chart, not covered in any reliable sources, dubious methodology. Hosted by myx which is notable, but notability is by no means inherited. Doesn't seem worth merging as it's almost entirely unverifiable. Regardless of outcome, should be added to WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hannah Montana: The Movie. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Deleted PROD - Crystal ball speculation about a probable future album. All details are rumors, speculation or attributed with no documentation. NrDg 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Note: album not listed at http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/index.html, label's list of future albums. -- NrDg 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Band formed just this year; zero non-wiki ghits for the band; zero gnews hits. Borderline G3 speedy. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined G4 speedy deletion nomination. Going back in the deletion log and the deleted contributions, articles on this title have been speedily deleted six times, and once through a previous AFD. While the most recent deleted incarnation of this article was clearly speedy material, this current one has some references, and made me think twice about deleting it, and giving it a new AFD, in order to gauge the community's opinion on whether this subject clears notability, considering the repeated attempts at creating it. If it survives, then great. If it dies, then I highly recommend salting the title to prevent future creations. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable magazine, reads more like an advert than anything encyclopaedic Blowdart | talk 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. No reliable sources in Google, no real sources. Lay Lady Lay ( talk) 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Duke University. WP:NOT is pretty good to stick to in this instance. Rankings are important in some way, but a list is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate collection of statistics in addition to a host of verifiability problems. Madcoverboy ( talk) 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable Weekly Shōnen Jump manga with no reviews from reliable sources or any other other third-party reliable sources found. Author also appears to be non-notable. Simply being serialized in a manga magazine doesn't make a work notable. Farix ( Talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Contains an assertion of importance, so this isn't speediable under A7. Still, mayoral candidates don't warrant articles without exceptional news coverage and discussion, and this day-old campaign hasn't got it. — Kww( talk) 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. SNOW closing due to BLP concerns. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 09:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have number of problems with this article
If anyone can think of grounds to speedy here, I'd be even happier. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Not sure if this is a hoax or a misspelling, but there is something odd at work here. If the claims are true, notability is not in question per WP:ATHLETE, but I couldn't verify them via Google, nor is the subject listed in the current squad of his purported team. Skomorokh 14:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to headache. MBisanz talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This article makes a confused OR case for a condition that does not, in fact, exist. Headaches may indeed occur in poisoning as well as systemic inflammation, but not under this name and not due to the causes listed. No supportive sources, unverifiable. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced original research about a neologism. Google search returns about 200 hits which do not appear to refer to any specific theory or practice. A news search returns all of two ghits, both a bout a single school which uses a program of the same name. Tagged (not by author) with "underconstruction", but unlikely to improve based on the existing material. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently fails WP:NFF; I am unable to find any sources which can confirm that principal photography has commenced. Prod removed without explanation. PC78 ( talk) 12:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was RESULT Nomination withdrawn. Triwbe ( talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
When I saw this article I was sure it was an advert, so I proposed it for speedy deletion. This was declined, so I and others tagged it for various things. The originator appears to be either a bloke who's built one or "Jim" who is part of the company (contact details on its website), but doesn't seem to be enthusiastic enough to come back and build a good article, nor even to get the capitalisation right. So I'm concerned that this is a COI article that is a thinly disguised advert.
Fiddle Faddle (
talk) 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced since 2007, probable hoax as there is no evidence the player actually exists. Request on talk page February 2008 for evidence player exists has gone unanswered since then. Davewild ( talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album (though band appears it may be notable). SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). Fun Pika 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Borderline case, appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy nomination. Original nominator stated "blatant hoax/vandalism". SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The author did originate the concept. Here is the book which has a central theme expressing the idea: [14]
Here is a short summation of the central idea expressed in the book in a statement made by the author: [15]
The idea does have reliable source coverage outside the book: (I am getting these links now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwalkernine ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. After discounting the WP:SPAs, the only remaining argument to keep is "Will probably become more notable" which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Notability first, Wikipedia article second. Stifle ( talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Declined speedy. Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 08:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
As for CRYSTAL BALL, I don't see anywhere in the Geddon Gear article where it is stating that the 2012 "event" is indeed coming.....that information is left justifiably to the 2012 section in wikipedia itself. And while a statement suggesting FUTURE notability is indeed weak, I would argue again that in this case there is cause to at least seek further opinion.<br\>
Finally, while I do agree the entry may indeed be its owners attempting to bloviate about their site, that is generally just conjecture, and there is no way to prove or disprove they are the owners or major contributors. So far I have only seen basic statements of fact, and honest attempts at updating the article to be more in line with the quality and expectations of Wikipedia.<br\>
Enjoying the debate! Tweak2020 ( talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
A new "football league" that has a blog (on blogspot) and a website (on a webhost) and a contact (a yahoo email address.) This seems to fall under WP:MADEUP as I can't find any news articles about a new American football league forming, much less recruiting NFL-caliber players and starting up a new version of the Super Bowl. DB rejected, now proposing this as an AfD. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. MBisanz talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability is a major issue. A direct quote from the article: "Presently there are no websites representing this Shahid Beheshti Optometry program on the internet [...]" which means no notability/verifiability. flaming lawyer 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Rouge speedy delete per WP:NFT. Kusma ( talk) 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this doesn't fit neatly into any CSD criteria, so it's here now... It's a religion made up by some kid in the past month, so it has no current notability and definitely never will. flaming lawyer 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The sources here are not about the subject, they are either directories which list the subject or media with the subject's byline. The article is the work of a single-purpose account and was recreated by said SPA immediately after speedy deletion. Google returns 228 unique hits of which all appear to be his own sites / myspace / blog or his byline. I did not find a single independent biographical source; I regard this as a pressing problem per WP:BLP. The number of hits on Google is a particular indication of lack of notability in that he is claimed to be an "author, journalist and logger" - that is a very small Google footprint for such occupations in this day and age. Guy ( Help!) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bar. JaGa talk 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability, fails WP:ATH Guy0307 ( talk) 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G12. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a high school report on options trading... WP:OR is the applicable guideline here. flaming lawyer 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Basically no content and no assertion of being a notable rivalry. -- aktsu ( t / c) 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; article is unsourced and no third-party references found on Google on the subject, nor the organizations over which he presides. User has opened a host of non-notable biographical articles, all of which have been speedily deleted. sixtynine • spill it • 07:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable demo that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel ( talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Album that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N in every way that I can see. No major news coverage, and nothing on the album charted. ArcAngel ( talk) 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Band that I can find no major coverage on. Has had no singles or albums chart, so based on that fails WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel ( talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Self-published amateur anthology, page created by the guy running the anthology; does not meet notability requirements. Doceirias ( talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not-notable, all sources are either from the website itself or blog posts. Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete Not a notable actress, only related to an actor (father). Ipromise ( talk) 05:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Here's the possible criteria for actresses, either regular or porn. reply
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. NO
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. NO
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. NO
Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres. NO
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. NO
Ipromise (
talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Possible WP:COI issues as well, prod declined. Ray ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator WWGB ( talk) 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (n-a closure) reply
Non-notable comic, no claims of notability, no sources, but there is no speedy deletion tag for comics. AnyPerson ( talk) 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll withdraw this. My apologies for not doing a better investigation first. AnyPerson ( talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
A very short lived series serialized for only 4 months before it was pulled do to lack of popularity. No third-party reliable sources found covering the series. Author also appears to be non-notable. Farix ( Talk) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Reasons for deletion: Cannot meet sourcing standards per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:NOT, articles fails to meet notability guidelines per Wikipedia:NOT, POV is obviously a major issue here. Also fails Wikipedia:CORP. I'm more then willing to edit this article and create a balance, but I can't seem to find anything online to support such edits. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Creating deletion discussion page for Action Palestine
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about an on-line art gallery. I originally tagged it for speedy deletion but the author added references so I decided it send it for AfD instead. The problem is that it is a purely on-line gallery and there are no RS references. The gallery has some publications but it seems that they are self-published. Each reference is either the gallery itself or a blog. Googling for the artist (Adam Gillespie) or the gallery produces a lot of social networking but nothing RS on the first few pages. Google News and Scholar are no better. The author has made a statement about why he thinks the article should be kept on Talk:Beat Kids Gallery. While I appreciate that he has done his best to meet the requirements I simply can't see notability or full verifiability. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I nominated this page for a speedy deletion under A7 however I was notified that it did not fall under this category because it was a place. I was further advised to nominate it for AfD if I still believe it should go, which I am doing. I believe that not only does this article provide no context, however I also believe that it is not notable. Aka042 ( talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Biography written in a self-promotional style. Athletic achievements not notable (the Atlantic Coast Hockey League was a small regional league), the words about him being "known for his thunderous hits" and "ineffective in college as fighting in (sic) not allowed" read like - bragging? This person doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines in WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced article about nn name. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Actress with no defensible claim to notability. Fails to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith ( talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). Fun Pika 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article is quoted frequently but isn't given significant coverage in reliable sources. The focus of articles that mention the subject tend to be Microsoft Encarta, leading to a conclusion of semi-notability for one event to the (limited) extent that he could be demonstrated to be notable at all. Bongo matic 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I cna't find any reliable sources that show notability. This article was posted on the talk page, but the article needs multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 ( talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Product is not notable software. 16x9 ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Only notable for one event; fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ONEEVENT Ironholds ( talk) 12:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
-->
The result was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Software product that is not notable. 16x9 ( talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Individual monster trucks generally aren't notable. There is no substantial coverage of reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Flyingcandyman ( talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This deletion result was vacated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 2. Stifle ( talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Article about this subject, which was also written by the subject, was previously speedy deleted (G11). See Becky Altringer (private investigator). -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. According to Fashion Model Directory, since competing in (and not placing in) the Elite contest over a decade ago, she has managed one magazine cover (not even a solo cover), two ads, and only a handful of runway appearances, mostly for non-notable designers. This is basically the fashion equivalent of an actor with a one-word role or two. Performed a brief search for good sources, but found mention in just a pair of blogs. Mbinebri talk ← 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of passengers on the Mayflower. MBisanz talk 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article on a person which the only source provided specifically says "Almost nothing is known about John Allerton". Not an historically notable or important person in the colonization of New England. TM 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article on a person with little notability, fails WP:BIO TM 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Mizuki Kawashita. MBisanz talk 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:Non-notable manga with no evidence that it has received any reviews or coverage by reliable sources. The article is nothing more then a plot summary. Normally I prefer to redirect this article to the author's page, but two attempts at redirecting the article was met with resistance be an obstinate editor who threatened admin action over the redirect. [20] Farix ( Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nom. ( Non-admin closure). -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
this page lacks WP:RS reliable sources, WP:N demonstratove notebility, or anything and google yields only wikipedia sarticles and mirrors that mention this place at all Smith Jones ( talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
comment Not sure about wether this should be merged to Alfred Street, but just wanted to say that SJ's searches are incorrect/not as useful as google book search which finds WP:RS far more easily. For Vine Hall, Alfred Street it yields [21] [22] about 171 mentions in WP:RS. The building gave its name to the previous name for Alfred Street, which was Vine Hall Lane. It is irrelevant whether it is currently on the Oxford Uni website- it's unlikely to be, as it no longer exists, but they are not trying to be and encyclopedia.:) As a rule, it edifies Wikipedia to include historical/cultural artefacts and subjects, which obviously often will not have as many mentions on the internet as things contemporary to the internet. Sticky Parkin 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
< 31 January | 2 February > |
---|
The result was Speedy keep Bad faith nom by user who had several insurance articles deleted. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Blantant advertising South Bay ( talk) 22:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This person seems to be a minor professional tennis player and coach. A Google search turns up a few hits, but nothing substantial on the subject. I know next to nothing about tennis, but I imagine there are thousands of minor professional tennis players in the world. He does have his own website, which means very little. (I have my own website too.) If anyone can prove notability, I will gladly withdraw the nomination. ••• Life of Riley ( talk) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable song, no sources. Seems too obscure to merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy Keep bad faith nom. WP:SNOW (non admin close) Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
violates WP:Spam South Bay ( talk) 22:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sources back up almost none of the info. Album was unreleased and hasn't been written about in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn. [1] ( non-admin closure) — neuro (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail
WP:MUSICBIO by not having at least two albums. No reliable sources in English provided.. -- Mufka
(u)
(t)
(c) 22:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
Withdrawn - taking your collective word for it that notability is established in the non-English sources. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Speedy close Clearly notable. WP:SOFIXIT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Blantant advertising South Bay ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Quest (gaming). Icewedge ( talk) 06:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article was prodded, and prod was deleted, so taking it to AFD. Article appears to have little or no content beyond what could appear (or appears) in other more notable articles. Plastikspork ( talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC). reply
The result was speedy delete per CSD G6 (non-controversial cleanup). This was clearly a mistake, and the archive has been created at the correct location: Talk:KPFA/Archive 1. — TKD:: Talk 23:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This is a charming little dicdef of an article, but it seems completely unverifiable (no Google hits apart from mirrors) and is probably not notable anyway. -- N Shar ( talk · contribs) 21:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
No reviews or other third-party reliable sources could be found from which to presume notability. I was only able to find a rather trivial mention at The Comics Reporter. The author, Haruto Umezawa, may be notable for another series, Hareluya II Boy, which was adapted into a television series, but I haven't been able to find any more information on it. Farix ( Talk) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Protologism with little to no assertion of notability. Xenocide Talk| Contributions 21:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to SWR Sound Corporation. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Erm, it's a bass guitar cabinet. No way this is notable enough for inclusion on an encyclopedia. GARDEN 21:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G12. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research Patton t/ c 21:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non notable band. No tours, no notable label, no reviews etc... Fails WP:MUSIC on all levels. Delete Undead Warrior ( talk) 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was withdrawn and nominated for speedy deletion (db-web, CSD A7). Politizer talk/ contribs 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article about a single webpage (not website, just page—a recent top-100 list) that does nothing but repeat the contents of the list. Therefore, there is no room for development or improvement, and the article itself is nothing but a regurgitation of IGN's own point of view. (Note: prod was contested by article creator.) Politizer talk/ contribs 20:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
A random list of photos and directions to temples without any references or claims to notability. The article was deleted on a PROD because of WP:NOT#IINFO, and then recreated identically, which I'll take as a belated objection to the PROD. As it is, it is a FORK from the identical section in Nandyal#Nava_Nandis (an article with a different set of problems). I am skeptical on the question of whether there is notability or a potential article here (only 111 ghits), but an editor wanting to create a Navanandi article would have to dump this one and start from scratch anyway; there's not even anything to reduce to a stub. THF ( talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Lego Group as per previous AfD, and I have protected the redirect too. Black Kite 20:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable web site...thing. Cited only to the site itself; no indication of third-party coverage. Also stylistically incoherent. -- EEMIV ( talk) 19:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Absolutely no coverage in reliable third party sources has been demonstrated; there's virtually unanimous consensus that the subject of the article is not notable enough for inclusion — this has even been admitted by those who said the article shouldn't be deleted. This point can not be ignored, even though some may find this article interesting, useful, nice or whatever. After all, there's a clear consensus that the article does not meet our guidelines for inclusion — nothing else matters in the end. — Aitias // discussion 22:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable manga series that was serialized in Weekly Shōnen Jump for just over 5 months. No reviews or other coverage by third-party reliable source could be found. Author appears to be non-notable with only a series of non-notable one-shots to his credits. Farix ( Talk) 19:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Original research, non-notable subject. Very few ghits (see here). Most of the article is actually about the bystander effect, which already has its own article, the rest is an OR essay. andy ( talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this article is a hoax. It relies for its notability and verifiability upon the March 2004 edition of Linguist, the periodical of the International Linguistics Association.
I have some problems with the jpeg purporting to show the cover of the magazine:
1. I cannot find an "International Linguistics Association". I can only find an "International Linguistic Assocation" [3]. They seem to get called the "International Linguistics Association" a lot, e.g. [4] and [5]. There are lots of Google hits for "International Linguistics Association" but when you follow any link on them to the actual organisation you end up at the "International Linguistic Assocation" website. But I wouldn't expect them to get the name wrong on their own publication!
2. The International Linguistic Assocation publishes a periodical, but it is called The Word, not Linguist. You can see what the 2004 issues contained here [6] Even this site manages to use the "International Linguistics Assocation" name!
3. There is a magazine called The Linguist. It is the publication of the (British) Chartered Institute of Linguists. You can see the cover here [7] and the contents of previous issues here [8]. I find it hard to believe that an international linguists association would give their magazine the same name as the one published by the official British professional linguists body.
4.If I type the bar code into the GSI database [9] then it complains that there are the wrong number of digits. It tells me that Key GTIN must be 8, 12, 13 or 14 digits long. Scanning the Universal Product Code article (pun intended) I think the bar code on the magazine is missing its first and last digits.
Eliminating the magazine, then all I can see on the web that might support the article is the definiton in the Urban Dictionary [10] (which it appears anyone can edit, although unlike Wikipedia they don't appear to ask for references); and search terms such as "parfact worcestershire" and "parfact cryptolect" on Google only find Wikipedia clones. Jll ( talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
••• Life of Riley ( talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article is a neologism. Did a search and cannot find reliable secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article could be written. Article was previously proposed for deletion in 2008 and deleted then so am bringing it to AFD as the only remaining option Davewild ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:NFT applies here. Zero gnews hits for the sport or the governing body (and zero non-wiki ghits for the governing body). Thousands of ghits for the "sport", but most are simply using crazy as an adjective to describe a ping pong video (and many of the ghits predate the supposed first date of play.) Prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 21:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable chart, not covered in any reliable sources, dubious methodology. Hosted by myx which is notable, but notability is by no means inherited. Doesn't seem worth merging as it's almost entirely unverifiable. Regardless of outcome, should be added to WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Hannah Montana: The Movie. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Deleted PROD - Crystal ball speculation about a probable future album. All details are rumors, speculation or attributed with no documentation. NrDg 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Note: album not listed at http://disneymusic.disney.go.com/index.html, label's list of future albums. -- NrDg 18:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Band formed just this year; zero non-wiki ghits for the band; zero gnews hits. Borderline G3 speedy. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 02:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined G4 speedy deletion nomination. Going back in the deletion log and the deleted contributions, articles on this title have been speedily deleted six times, and once through a previous AFD. While the most recent deleted incarnation of this article was clearly speedy material, this current one has some references, and made me think twice about deleting it, and giving it a new AFD, in order to gauge the community's opinion on whether this subject clears notability, considering the repeated attempts at creating it. If it survives, then great. If it dies, then I highly recommend salting the title to prevent future creations. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable magazine, reads more like an advert than anything encyclopaedic Blowdart | talk 17:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. No reliable sources in Google, no real sources. Lay Lady Lay ( talk) 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Duke University. WP:NOT is pretty good to stick to in this instance. Rankings are important in some way, but a list is not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Indiscriminate collection of statistics in addition to a host of verifiability problems. Madcoverboy ( talk) 16:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 14:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Another non-notable Weekly Shōnen Jump manga with no reviews from reliable sources or any other other third-party reliable sources found. Author also appears to be non-notable. Simply being serialized in a manga magazine doesn't make a work notable. Farix ( Talk) 15:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Contains an assertion of importance, so this isn't speediable under A7. Still, mayoral candidates don't warrant articles without exceptional news coverage and discussion, and this day-old campaign hasn't got it. — Kww( talk) 14:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Delete. SNOW closing due to BLP concerns. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 09:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I have number of problems with this article
If anyone can think of grounds to speedy here, I'd be even happier. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Not sure if this is a hoax or a misspelling, but there is something odd at work here. If the claims are true, notability is not in question per WP:ATHLETE, but I couldn't verify them via Google, nor is the subject listed in the current squad of his purported team. Skomorokh 14:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to headache. MBisanz talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This article makes a confused OR case for a condition that does not, in fact, exist. Headaches may indeed occur in poisoning as well as systemic inflammation, but not under this name and not due to the causes listed. No supportive sources, unverifiable. JFW | T@lk 13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Unreferenced original research about a neologism. Google search returns about 200 hits which do not appear to refer to any specific theory or practice. A news search returns all of two ghits, both a bout a single school which uses a program of the same name. Tagged (not by author) with "underconstruction", but unlikely to improve based on the existing material. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Apparently fails WP:NFF; I am unable to find any sources which can confirm that principal photography has commenced. Prod removed without explanation. PC78 ( talk) 12:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was RESULT Nomination withdrawn. Triwbe ( talk) 15:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
When I saw this article I was sure it was an advert, so I proposed it for speedy deletion. This was declined, so I and others tagged it for various things. The originator appears to be either a bloke who's built one or "Jim" who is part of the company (contact details on its website), but doesn't seem to be enthusiastic enough to come back and build a good article, nor even to get the capitalisation right. So I'm concerned that this is a COI article that is a thinly disguised advert.
Fiddle Faddle (
talk) 11:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Completely unsourced since 2007, probable hoax as there is no evidence the player actually exists. Request on talk page February 2008 for evidence player exists has gone unanswered since then. Davewild ( talk) 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable album (though band appears it may be notable). SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). Fun Pika 00:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Borderline case, appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy nomination. Original nominator stated "blatant hoax/vandalism". SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The author did originate the concept. Here is the book which has a central theme expressing the idea: [14]
Here is a short summation of the central idea expressed in the book in a statement made by the author: [15]
The idea does have reliable source coverage outside the book: (I am getting these links now.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindwalkernine ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. After discounting the WP:SPAs, the only remaining argument to keep is "Will probably become more notable" which violates WP:CRYSTAL. Notability first, Wikipedia article second. Stifle ( talk) 12:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Declined speedy. Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 08:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
As for CRYSTAL BALL, I don't see anywhere in the Geddon Gear article where it is stating that the 2012 "event" is indeed coming.....that information is left justifiably to the 2012 section in wikipedia itself. And while a statement suggesting FUTURE notability is indeed weak, I would argue again that in this case there is cause to at least seek further opinion.<br\>
Finally, while I do agree the entry may indeed be its owners attempting to bloviate about their site, that is generally just conjecture, and there is no way to prove or disprove they are the owners or major contributors. So far I have only seen basic statements of fact, and honest attempts at updating the article to be more in line with the quality and expectations of Wikipedia.<br\>
Enjoying the debate! Tweak2020 ( talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
A new "football league" that has a blog (on blogspot) and a website (on a webhost) and a contact (a yahoo email address.) This seems to fall under WP:MADEUP as I can't find any news articles about a new American football league forming, much less recruiting NFL-caliber players and starting up a new version of the Super Bowl. DB rejected, now proposing this as an AfD. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 08:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was redirect to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. MBisanz talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability is a major issue. A direct quote from the article: "Presently there are no websites representing this Shahid Beheshti Optometry program on the internet [...]" which means no notability/verifiability. flaming lawyer 08:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Rouge speedy delete per WP:NFT. Kusma ( talk) 10:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, this doesn't fit neatly into any CSD criteria, so it's here now... It's a religion made up by some kid in the past month, so it has no current notability and definitely never will. flaming lawyer 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The sources here are not about the subject, they are either directories which list the subject or media with the subject's byline. The article is the work of a single-purpose account and was recreated by said SPA immediately after speedy deletion. Google returns 228 unique hits of which all appear to be his own sites / myspace / blog or his byline. I did not find a single independent biographical source; I regard this as a pressing problem per WP:BLP. The number of hits on Google is a particular indication of lack of notability in that he is claimed to be an "author, journalist and logger" - that is a very small Google footprint for such occupations in this day and age. Guy ( Help!) 13:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable bar. JaGa talk 07:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Notability, fails WP:ATH Guy0307 ( talk) 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was speedy delete G12. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Sounds like a high school report on options trading... WP:OR is the applicable guideline here. flaming lawyer 07:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Basically no content and no assertion of being a notable rivalry. -- aktsu ( t / c) 07:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable; article is unsourced and no third-party references found on Google on the subject, nor the organizations over which he presides. User has opened a host of non-notable biographical articles, all of which have been speedily deleted. sixtynine • spill it • 07:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable demo that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel ( talk) 07:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Album that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N in every way that I can see. No major news coverage, and nothing on the album charted. ArcAngel ( talk) 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Band that I can find no major coverage on. Has had no singles or albums chart, so based on that fails WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel ( talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 12:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Self-published amateur anthology, page created by the guy running the anthology; does not meet notability requirements. Doceirias ( talk) 06:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not-notable, all sources are either from the website itself or blog posts. Ryan4314 ( talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. ( non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete Not a notable actress, only related to an actor (father). Ipromise ( talk) 05:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Here's the possible criteria for actresses, either regular or porn. reply
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. NO
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. NO
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. NO
Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres. NO
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. NO
Ipromise (
talk) 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Possible WP:COI issues as well, prod declined. Ray ( talk) 04:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Appears to fail WP:WEB. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 04:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator WWGB ( talk) 04:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC) (n-a closure) reply
Non-notable comic, no claims of notability, no sources, but there is no speedy deletion tag for comics. AnyPerson ( talk) 04:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I'll withdraw this. My apologies for not doing a better investigation first. AnyPerson ( talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
A very short lived series serialized for only 4 months before it was pulled do to lack of popularity. No third-party reliable sources found covering the series. Author also appears to be non-notable. Farix ( Talk) 03:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Reasons for deletion: Cannot meet sourcing standards per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, content is not suitable for an encyclopedia, per Wikipedia:NOT, articles fails to meet notability guidelines per Wikipedia:NOT, POV is obviously a major issue here. Also fails Wikipedia:CORP. I'm more then willing to edit this article and create a balance, but I can't seem to find anything online to support such edits. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 02:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Creating deletion discussion page for Action Palestine
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This article is about an on-line art gallery. I originally tagged it for speedy deletion but the author added references so I decided it send it for AfD instead. The problem is that it is a purely on-line gallery and there are no RS references. The gallery has some publications but it seems that they are self-published. Each reference is either the gallery itself or a blog. Googling for the artist (Adam Gillespie) or the gallery produces a lot of social networking but nothing RS on the first few pages. Google News and Scholar are no better. The author has made a statement about why he thinks the article should be kept on Talk:Beat Kids Gallery. While I appreciate that he has done his best to meet the requirements I simply can't see notability or full verifiability. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I nominated this page for a speedy deletion under A7 however I was notified that it did not fall under this category because it was a place. I was further advised to nominate it for AfD if I still believe it should go, which I am doing. I believe that not only does this article provide no context, however I also believe that it is not notable. Aka042 ( talk) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Biography written in a self-promotional style. Athletic achievements not notable (the Atlantic Coast Hockey League was a small regional league), the words about him being "known for his thunderous hits" and "ineffective in college as fighting in (sic) not allowed" read like - bragging? This person doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines in WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon ( talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete unsourced article about nn name. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Actress with no defensible claim to notability. Fails to satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:PORNBIO. Valrith ( talk) 02:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Keep (Non-Admin Closure). Fun Pika 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The subject of this article is quoted frequently but isn't given significant coverage in reliable sources. The focus of articles that mention the subject tend to be Microsoft Encarta, leading to a conclusion of semi-notability for one event to the (limited) extent that he could be demonstrated to be notable at all. Bongo matic 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
I cna't find any reliable sources that show notability. This article was posted on the talk page, but the article needs multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 ( talk) 20:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Product is not notable software. 16x9 ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Only notable for one event; fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ONEEVENT Ironholds ( talk) 12:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
-->
The result was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 10:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Software product that is not notable. 16x9 ( talk) 04:56, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Cirt ( talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Individual monster trucks generally aren't notable. There is no substantial coverage of reliable sources and therefore fails WP:N. Tavix (talk) 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete, not notable. Flyingcandyman ( talk) 06:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 11:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
This deletion result was vacated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 2. Stifle ( talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Not notable; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Article about this subject, which was also written by the subject, was previously speedy deleted (G11). See Becky Altringer (private investigator). -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 05:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Magioladitis ( talk) 10:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Non-notable. According to Fashion Model Directory, since competing in (and not placing in) the Elite contest over a decade ago, she has managed one magazine cover (not even a solo cover), two ads, and only a handful of runway appearances, mostly for non-notable designers. This is basically the fashion equivalent of an actor with a one-word role or two. Performed a brief search for good sources, but found mention in just a pair of blogs. Mbinebri talk ← 21:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to List of passengers on the Mayflower. MBisanz talk 02:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article on a person which the only source provided specifically says "Almost nothing is known about John Allerton". Not an historically notable or important person in the colonization of New England. TM 19:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Stifle ( talk) 11:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC) reply
Article on a person with little notability, fails WP:BIO TM 19:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was merge to Mizuki Kawashita. MBisanz talk 02:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC) reply
WP:Non-notable manga with no evidence that it has received any reviews or coverage by reliable sources. The article is nothing more then a plot summary. Normally I prefer to redirect this article to the author's page, but two attempts at redirecting the article was met with resistance be an obstinate editor who threatened admin action over the redirect. [20] Farix ( Talk) 00:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was Withdrawn by nom. ( Non-admin closure). -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 19:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
this page lacks WP:RS reliable sources, WP:N demonstratove notebility, or anything and google yields only wikipedia sarticles and mirrors that mention this place at all Smith Jones ( talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply
comment Not sure about wether this should be merged to Alfred Street, but just wanted to say that SJ's searches are incorrect/not as useful as google book search which finds WP:RS far more easily. For Vine Hall, Alfred Street it yields [21] [22] about 171 mentions in WP:RS. The building gave its name to the previous name for Alfred Street, which was Vine Hall Lane. It is irrelevant whether it is currently on the Oxford Uni website- it's unlikely to be, as it no longer exists, but they are not trying to be and encyclopedia.:) As a rule, it edifies Wikipedia to include historical/cultural artefacts and subjects, which obviously often will not have as many mentions on the internet as things contemporary to the internet. Sticky Parkin 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC) reply