The result was delete. Writing papers/text books is insufficient for notability for people in academia since it is a regular part of their job. Crucially, this article contains no reliable secondary sources attesting to notability of the subject or his works.
An academic who is neither particularly senior nor apparently particularly notable. No good reason given as to why he is any more notable than thousands of other university lecturers. -- Necrothesp 23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (nonadmin).. Navou banter 01:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine people, working for a worthy cause. Just not really notable, plus the tone of self-promotion is further reason to delete. Merge any useful details into Autism Awareness Campaign UK (itself an atrociously-written article probably worthy of deletion). Biruitorul 23:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The delete !votes present a clear majority but are also based on appropriate deletion topics such as notability and verifiability. The keeps are more centered around precedent (with no proof of solidly-matching precedent given by either side) and comparison (to Cornell School of Hotel Administration which can be reliably sourced with no work at all) as well as apparent conflict of interest. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of independent third party coverage of notability, has been twice deleted before - but not through afd. Carlossuarez46 23:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assertion of independent third party coverage of notability finally added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studentservices (talk • contribs) 22:05, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep all. @pple 17:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that this was previously nominated for deletion years ago, but that debate seemed to focus on whether the genre actually exists. I can say with confidence that "crust punk" exists in the mind of its fans, but I see no indication that the genre is notable or that its Wikipedia article consists anything more than a collection of original research. I can't find a single reliable reference to this type of music. The lone external link in the article points to an obscure record label's website. Some of the bands that supposedly fall under this genre's umbrella might be notable, but the proposition that they can be reliably sourced as being "crust punk" is dubious. If someone can produce reliable sources, I'll reconsider my position; but even then, the music genre would be bettter served by a modest section in the grindcore or hardcore punk article. I expect this will generate a fair amount of controversy among certain fans of the music, but instead of merely objecting, please provide counter-evidence (in the form of references) to my assertion that this is not a notable genre of music.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for obvious reasons:
Keep, I'll start citing references and asking more people with an interest in it to start editing. I could post some links to myspaces, but they're classed as punk bands because it doesn't have a crust genre. Ugly you
The result was delete. PeaceNT 05:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no, no, no. A completely crufty, 30-years-worth list of films that have nothing in common except their distributor, badly disguising an ad as an article. Corvus cornix 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 19:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems more like a catagory - also may not meet WP:NN as it cites no sources - although I'm sure that a list of events could be found. Also WP:NOT#INFO may apply. Guest9999 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want it kept PLEASE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.200.138.90 (talk) 22:38, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep. John254 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that this person is notable. Google search on "Cheri Gaulke" turns up few articles, at least most on the first page not about her. Google search on the sources in the "Bibliography" section usually turned up nothing. --דניאל - Danielrocks123 22:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. A classic case of someone who's on the way to possible notability, but isn't there yet. A few WP:RS based on a couple of incidents doesn't quite cut it, really. Very little coverage outside these minor incidents. No problem with re-creation if she manages to increase her claims of notability. ELIMINATORJR 11:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. In a nutshell: she ranted at the Clintons, appeared on "many syndicated political talk shows", has some opinions about local and national politics, and heckled Giuliani (in a state where candidates spend a lot of time). Also, no references. She might become notable if her role grew and she garnered more press attention, but not yet. Biruitorul 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for references since March with no improvement. Small, non-notable mall, fails WP:RS and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn model/independent wrestling manager. The article was previously deleted in an AFD under Milena Roucka and is now salted. I assumed someone made a page with her middle name to get around the salted version. An attempt was made to speedy delete the page but was denied (although maybe that should be reconsidered). The AFD was about a year ago, and she was managing at this independent promotion at the time, and is still doing that today, so her notability has increased very little in the time span, if at all. There are sources, but they are all deadlinks, results, or merely mention her in passing, nothing from any major publication that shows notability. There is a long line of other failed diva search contestants that have been deleted, as well as other performers in said promotion. Biggspowd 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein 17:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Google search turns up nothing. Cannot improve. VegitaU 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 05:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Youth players are not notable as per WP:BIO and WikiProject Football standards —Lesfer (t/c/@) 22:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
The result was Delete Eluchil404 17:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable company. Tagged with ((notability)) since February 2007 with no significant improvements. Hawaiian717 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 11:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As currently written, this article does not contain any reliable secondary sources to satisfy the notability guidelines for companies. Nick—Contact/Contribs 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Eluchil404 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged speedy as blatant advertising, but it seems less spammy than that, however there is still a question of notability - fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. @pple 17:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party WP:RSes showing that this movement is notable. Carlossuarez46 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy. Postcard Cathy 21:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy Postcard Cathy 21:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy Postcard Cathy 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Navou banter 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A pile of Vim scripts with no assertion of notability. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to gain better consensus Computerjoe's talk 12:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Punkmorten 17:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod contested. As written, article doesn't tell me if this guy is a benchwarmer, super star or something in between. As far as I am concerned, simply being a soccer player means nothing. What you do while you are playing soccer is what makes you notable or not. Nothing here indicates notability. The way I see it, if there was something notable to be said about the guy, someone would have said it. Since nothing was said, there must be nothing notable about the guy. Postcard Cathy 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lack of particular notability in either plastic surgery or art Droliver 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I knew the name sounded familiar (me and him sharing the same last name). He was the plastic surgeon on The Swan (TV series). I am not totally sure this asserts notability, but if the article was given a good rewrite/cleanup, it could be good enough. Tinkleheimer 04:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 11:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. MastCell Talk 17:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list. If each episode had its own page, which they do not, then a category would be warranted. As it is, this page serves no purpose at all. Delete Man It's So Loud In Here 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 17:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gsearch does not come up with this drink in the first several pages. No claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR 11:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to delete this article. Although the term is common on google, this seems to come mostly from here. I did some searches on the academic parts of Google:
The Swedish term is sv:Munsöätten. Also this term is not found on scholar.google. However, on books.google this term occurs. In just one single book, on three pages in "Fornnordisk ordbok" (1975) by sv:Åke Ohlmarks. Conclusion: this is bordering on WP:HOAX. It should not be an article. /Pieter Kuiper 21:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn album by nn group on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn album by nn band on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn album by nn band on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn album from nn band on nn label(s), fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another nn album from nn band, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another self-released album by nn band, fails WP:MUSIC Carlossuarez46 21:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn album by nn group on nn label, fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 21:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 17:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The author admits this is original research.[21] The article is so general and abstract it isn't even clear what field the material is drawn from. Alksub 20:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. @pple 17:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable future game. The sole editor seems to have a conflict of interest: Alex Gilbert (non-notable school kid)[22] and user Alex436. Its sister page Bob 2 has already been deleted by ProD on Aug. 19. This one was Proposed for Deletion, but the sole author tinkered with the page and removed the ProD. There is already a completely different game called "Secret Agent Bob 3",[23] but no third party Google hits that I can find for this one. Hu 20:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry about making this Artice but Im not a school boy and Im a 20 year old person and Alex Gilbert is a famous person in NZ and this is his new game out soon and I thought that this would help support him and with his Studio that has been around for 5 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.71.52 (talk • contribs)
1redrun 08:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one release after being signed fails WP:BAND, was tagged speedy but I delcined because this was closer call. Carlossuarez46 20:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Singularity 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like ads and the references link back to her talk page. Only a SPA[26] seems to have an interest in the article and that was only over three days back in March 2007. In any event, there is not enough reliable source material that is independent of Desiree Summers for this article to meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without such source material, the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability. I'm also adding Vessel Fitness -- Jreferee (Talk) 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'delete all. The "keep" votes do not address any relevant policy or guideline; see WP:ATA. Sandstein 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rapper with no albums—only one non-hit single and a mixtape. His only claim to fame is his famous father. Also nominating his non-hit single, as-yet-unreleased single and album, and the mixtape. Precious Roy 20:32, 20 August 2007 (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)) . |
The result was delete. Singularity 18:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, created five days ago, is a content fork as it duplicates other articles - specifically, it would appear to be a POV fork because the article is written with a definite point of view and as an alternate version to more neutral articles discussing similar subjects. Further, much of the body of the article is original research, as is demonstrated by Israel and racism#Zionism racism against some jews. I was initially going to suggest the merger of anything useful into Human rights in Israel, but on further review I don't see anything which matches that description. Israel and racism should be deleted because it does not and will not be able to conform to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Picaroon (t) 20:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Alksub 20:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Alksub 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was narrowly delete as WP:OR. The text is available for improvement if anyone wants it. Sandstein 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was AfD in 2005, with no consensus, but with all those voting keep arguing that the article could be saved by a major reworking. This has never happened, and I thus believe it is time that this article is finally deleted, due to all the POV and centricism problems noted upon in the first AfD nomination Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up-and-coming band, borderline notability re WP:MUSIC. As stated at the article, they "are set to captivate and shock all audiences"; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Oli Filth 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The channel is notable. Non-admin closure. --Boricuaeddie 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unexplained and incomplete nom by anon user. Given no cause for deletion, I say speedy-keep. DMacks 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by User:WilyD as spam. Non-admin closure. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Radio show with no assertion of notability. Oli Filth 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician; spam; conflict of interest. The Evil Spartan 19:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete; defaulting to keep. There was a balance of views with no over-riding policy reasons to delete. TerriersFan 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list is hard, if not impossible, to maintain. It seems to focus on older computers, but there may be a distinction between "home computers" and "personal computers" that I'm unaware of. Overall, categories would work better for the article, and lists like this aren't particularly notable. Exobyte 19:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete with no prejudice against an article on the topic when we have multiple, independentreliable sources about the topic. JoshuaZ 20:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a non-notable movement. The Evil Spartan 19:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please reconsider carefully. Haldimann 14:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A year ago, I have put this page online. The label has now been adopted by 70 companies. "swiss made software" has become a notable movement and label for good software, made in Switzerland. Please google "swiss made software" for references.
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about Canoe paddling in Hawaii; probably not notable enough for an article on the topic and would most likely be hard to write about without putting any original research in the article. Aqwis 18:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church, no claims of notability, zero Google hits (although I'll admit that a church in Sierra Leone is probably not going to have much of an Internet presence). I put a db-nn tag on it, but it was removed. Corvus cornix 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as nn-bio speedy, but playing with a whole bunch of bluelinks and other stuff in the article means that it does not qualify. However, the impact and nature of those performances probably requires investigation. Splash - tk 21:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. At no time was she ever more than the ninth-oldest living person in the world or the fourth-oldest person living in the United States. Also, WP:PSEUDO says that "In most cases, as noted above, a person who is only notable for one event does not merit a full biography under their name." I believe that this biography falls under that spectrum, as she is only known for her position among the world's oldest. Only two pages, Emma Tillman and Deaths in 2005 link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Canadian_Paul
[edit] Too many supercentenarian permastubs Yeah. Well, some of these pseudobiographies could do with a merge to "List of supercentenarians from country X", or similar, although people may object to that idea and consider it listcruft. I suggest you try nominating the article for deletion to see what people think.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You should nominate Gladys Swetland as a trial, since it's not current, I think. We'll have to develop a more precise set of rules for determining the notability of supercentenarians. Also, I may have said this before but I recognise you from deathlist.net.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure that 'not current' means 'easier to delete without others noticing'.
Ryoung122 08:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also note that it is linked to from List of the oldest people, which, per WP:PSEUDO, should be satisfactory given her claim for notability. Cheers, CP 20:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Read WP: PSEUDO again. This is NOT a case where a person was mentioned in passing in an event (i.e. murder crime victim). This is a case where the woman WAS the story...and was covered several times over a 3-year period. Hence, your argument fails. Whether others consider her 'still not notable' or not, this particular line of reasoning is an incorrect application in this situation.Ryoung122 14:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article existed BEFORE the list article was created. Also, anyone perusing the list will want to know more about each case on it...is it true? What more can one find out?Ryoung122 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Ringier. That looks more like a perma-stub to me. Note with all the articles referenced, this article 'can' be expanded. One reason I haven't is because I believe in the 'collective contribution' concept...let the article grow naturally as those who take interest in it add to it.Ryoung122 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, in regards to age, we find that much of the 'increase' has already occurred. In the early 1980's, being 109 or 110 was a rarity. Note that if Gladys had been her age in 1986, she would have been the world's oldest person. Ok, while the 'dynamic conveyor belt' is raising the age bar, it should be noted that the process is slowing down. We see only 4 of the top 100 people currently living. Given that Gladys is not at the bottom of the list, she should remain in the top 100 for at least several more years. I suggest if you are 'not happy' with this article, come back in 5-10 years from now. But age 113 years, 240 days is significant in its time...as noted, if she were alive right now she would be 4th-oldest in the world.Ryoung122 05:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, this woman ranked among the top-10 living persons and top-100 all-time. That alone should be enough to keep.Ryoung122 14:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia has an article for the top 10 living and a list of top 100 ever. And what happens when they die? The top 10 living list is changed, leaving them delinked from the oldest people page. I think it comes down to voting whether being a minimum of the 10th oldest person in the world is substantial to have an article. If yes, then this article, yes. If no, then all other deceased 10th oldest person in the world, goes bye-bye, unless they have some other notable fame, but then you have to draw the line of the minimum rank at death. Ever deceased oldest person in the world has an article and I strongly support that. Such a vote likely shouldn't be in this article, but something for Wikipedia admins to decide.
Here's what I nominate, my opinions are as follows:
Strong views:
By rank: The oldest person in the world, whether deceased, should have an article.
By geography: The oldest person by country, whether not 10th oldest, should have an article.
Not so strong views:
By rank: Down to the 5th oldest person in the world.
By geography: Down to the oldest person in a state, province, etc., of a country.
Weak views:
By rank: Down to the 10th oldest person in the world.
By geography: Down to the oldest person in a city..
The above can be split also by gender, so the oldest man in a country, could be 10th oldest in country, and 100th oldest in world.. Anyone else? Neal 16:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Continued)
Okay I added a "longevity" section in WP:BIO. I put "was the oldest person in the world" as they already have their articles. And I added an entry in the discussion page. Please go there to vote for a landmark decision. We can come back here if a decision is reached. Neal 16:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. WP: BIO is a 'guideline', not a rule. Ultimately, 'consensus' of the Wiki community determines notability.
2.Criteria for notability of people A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
Assessment of notability should not be a technical decision. Instead, it's like trying to choose which baseball players belong in the 'Hall of Fame'. Certain minimum standards are considered 'automatic' inclusion (barring scandal): 300 wins, 3,000 hits, 500 home runs.
In addition, other players who do not meet these standards but nonetheless demonstrated 'peak' talent (such as Sandy Koufax) are also voted in.
I note that standards 'do' change over time. Bruce Sutter was, in my opinion, dubiously elected based on a mere 300 saves, a standard which is less impressive now that Trevor Hoffman has over 500.
However, this is not (yet) the case with this article. If we check the List of living supercentenarians we find that, were Gladys alive today, she would rank fourth-oldest in the world (instead of ninth). At the time of Glady's death, several unusually long-lived persons were alive at the same time. Hence, standards are 'fuzzy', not concrete; a ranking alone should only be one variable. Other variables to consider include actual age and news coverage. If a person remained anonymous and was only known through a statistical records search and their age was not a recordbreaker, then perhaps they should not be included. This is not the case here.
Also, I disagree that the 'oldest person in a country' should automatically be included. Some nations are micro-states; others have huge populations. Being the oldest person in France means a lot more than being the oldest person in Monaco. Even in Belgium, the current oldest person is a mere 108 years old. Although first in the nation, I don't think Marcelle Droogmans yet warrants an article. If she is alive three years from now, her case may be on the cusp.
In the big picture of things,
Therefore, I propose the following general policy guidelines, not rules:
--the person's age should be accepted as validated by an established authority (i.e. Guinness, GRG, IDL) (and not a newspaper or nationalist source) and should be at least 110 years old (supercentenarian status). This would exclude the 'oldest living person' for places like Norway or Belgium in an 'off' year (i.e. age 107 or 108 isn't enough to establish worldwide notability). Exceptions could be made, however, to early historical age cases.
For those that meet the first condition (age 110), I note the raw numbers I have (for data through March 25, 2007):
Before I go further, I might ask: how much coverage is too much? True, just about every major league baseball player ever counts as a 'notable' biography to some. However, this might be a case where I agree with the 'other crap exists' argument. The fact is, for better or worse our society as a whole values sports figures far more than elderly icons. Perhaps 'supercentenarians' are better to compare to a lesser-known sport (perhaps tennis). We know the top-10 players, maybe top 20 but that's about it.
Basically, we can say that age 110 'alone' is not enough to establish notability. However, a line at age '114' (just 63) is too small (not even a top-100). Therefore, I propose that anyone who has reached the verified age of 113 should be considered notable and warrant an article, UNLESS that person's age came only from official statistics and their identity remained anonymous to the public (i.e. Adelheid Kirschbaum) and they did not attain a first-position rank (i.e. Matthew Beard). Dropping these cases would reduce our tally from '132' to perhaps 100.
However, if we set the bar that high, it would exclude many cases that received extensive media coverage (such as Antonio Todde). Germany's national record is under 113. Sweden's national record is more than a year below Ms. Swetland's age (113 years 240 days vs. 112 years 150 days). Also, since only 10% of supercentenarians tend to be male, we could perhaps lower the bar to age '111' for males.
Also, I don't like to make 'strong delineations' based on numbers alone. I feel that age "113" should be automatic inclusion. However, we see that often there aren't even ten living 113-year-olds in the entire world (currently we have seven). Thus I would prefer an age-merit cutoff of about 112.5 years. Why? This is halfway between age 110 (lots of cases) and 115 (extremely rare). Age '112.5' or 112 years 180 days would be enough to assure that anyone in the 'top 10' would be included.
Ok, but what about persons such as Irmgard von Stephani? She is just 111 currently, but Germany's oldest person, and a strong personality with lots of media coverage. Germany (with 80+ million people) is an important nation. Thus, I suggest being the oldest person in nations with 50 million or more persons (and remember, since cases must be validated, this basically means the USA, Japan, Germany, France, the UK, and Italy). But then what about Spain? Australia? Is Portugal enough? Is Switzerland too small? Where do we draw the line? Why do we have an article on Anna Ringier...Switzerland's oldest person?
To me, there are simply too many intuitive calculations to simply make arbitrary checklists. However, to review, a general guideline for inclusion:
--the case must be validated by a reputable, independent authority --the person's age --the person's national ranking status --the person's world ranking status --whether the person received significant media attention outside their local area
In summation, I consider age 112.5+ to be a 'definite' for an article, unless there simply is no material available. For those aged 110-112.49, I suggest inclusion of those that were the 'oldest living man'; the oldest person in a major nation; and those that were vaguely famous for something other than age.
Always keep
May Keep
Might or Might Not Keep
Might not Keep
So, with Gladys Swetland, we have a top-10 living, top-100 all-time, aged 113+ with significant media coverage. Hence, I say keep...and I've suggested where the bar should be set for other cases.
Sincerely, Robert Young Ryoung122 10:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clothing label may or may not be notable. Also seems to be spam. -WarthogDemon 18:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe performer; no references apart from blogs and listings - I can't find anything relevant myself either. ELIMINATORJR 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability. Has made two crossword puzzles, sang in a school band. Deprodded. Weregerbil 18:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus – the community seems split down the middle, with good points made by both viewpoints. - KrakatoaKatie 04:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd nomination, a year after concensus was not reached. Article seems to be an indiscriminate list --Oscarthecat 17:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 01:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be gaming cruft indiscriminate list, much like the "list of cars in ridge racer" type articles Oscarthecat 17:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. @pple 16:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. My rationale was
I still stand by that evaluation. The article was created by single-purpose account Cyberjohnboy (talk · contribs) and developed by him and two IPs from London, UK where Mr. Forde resides. Pascal.Tesson 17:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 17:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game mod. Deprodded. Weregerbil 16:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
there are two possible reasons (1) WP:NOT#STATS which states "Statistics. [...] In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic.[...]" (emphasis mine) (2) another user on the previous deletion (where I failed to fill in this reason text) discussion page claimed that the article was well cited to one source. If the source's primary copyright regards this same list, I don't see how this isn't copyright infringement. Pdbailey 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize the above, it's a great article for Wikisource, assuming that license is allowable. Pdbailey 17:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment In the first pass at this deletion nomination it was suggested that the article be renamed (see top), A problem with this is the existence of the highly similar List_of_largest_airlines_by_category, for more on this, see the talk page of the nominated article. Pdbailey 15:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to NSW HSC Advanced English ELIMINATORJR 23:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Not notable - The stimulus booklet is basically something we're tested on in the English exam. I would say merge with NSW HSC Advanced English, except, Journeys Stimulus Booklet looks like it's an exact copy of NSW HSC Advanced English anyway. — *H¡ρρ¡ ¡ρρ¡ 16:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Eagle Island, Maine (Penobscot Bay). — TKD::Talk 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolute orphan. I did it, and then needed to ask admin help to get disambiguation et cetera, and now there is a page Eagle Island, Maine (Penobscot Bay) which is the REAL one. There are two user links to this page, which should be 'fixed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumarest (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep Article is substantially changed following the delete arguments, resolving both the copyvio and COI issues resolved. No deletes following relisting. Resolute 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio of introduction paragraph on main page. Bushcarrot Talk Please Sign! 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_Control
http://www.qbssoftware.com/publisher_info.aspx?current=PRODUCTS&publisher=MICROCOSML
http://www.zappersoftware.com/copy-protection.html
http://www.fmpro.org/search/Software/7/
MooseMatt 11:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MooseMatt 15:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The current state of the article it's not worth merging, it's currently unsourced WP:NOR, trim that it's nearly an speedy and policy trumps consensus. I also discounted the obvious WP:ILIKEIT votes. Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
giant list of unreferenced/nn fancruft, this violates a lot of WP:NOT and should not have its own page on here. Biggspowd 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Renaming can be discussed elsewhere as I see no consensus here. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability warning since January, probably non-notable, or original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musor x (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire, merge Moff, delete Supreme Chancellor. Please take the merge discussion for Moff to Talk:Moff to determine exactly where to merge it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In-universeNo assertion of real-world notability with OR. Does not meet WP:FICT or pass WP:WAF. Suggest merging the second sentence into Galactic Empire (Star Wars), otherwise delete.
Also recommending the following for deletion for the same reason, which also are in-universe:
--EEMeltonIV 15:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 01:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Donald Trump. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not really a huge list of trivia like the other "IPC" articles, but basically an overblown hodgepodge of trivia and cruft about times he has appeared on TV shows, his WWE stint, etc. It is fairly redundant and most of it is sufficiently covered in the main article. Biggspowd 15:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded with reason "I don't call youtube notariarity sufficient for wiki worthiness. When she makes it, she can come back!". Prod disputed (mistakenly) with ((hangon)) tag. Procedural nomination. JPD (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found via link from a speedied article. Clear neologism Daniel Case 14:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 01:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable drinking game. 2 non-wiki ghits, one of which is a user-submitted list of drinking game rules, the other also appears to be user submitted. References in article do not appear to be quality references (one is the above mentioned user-submitted list). Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Artist's collective formally founded the day the article was created. No claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Also WP:COI issues. Fabrictramp 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to The Singapore Scout Association#Bukit Panjang District. — TKD::Talk 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Single school chapter of Sea Scouts, with no special claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 01:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was just copied from the main article Medal of Honor: Airborne, not really notable, not enough information and not wikified. Suggest it is merged back into the Medal of Honor: Airborne article. --Konasr 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 01:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was just copied from the main article Medal of Honor: Airborne, not really notable, not enough information and not wikified. Suggest it is merged back into the Medal of Honor: Airborne article. --Konasr 13:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per lack of independent reliable sources and salt per Scientizzle's reasoning. — TKD::Talk 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for a speedy and a PROD, but was removed on both occasions, so I guess this is the next step. There doesn't seem to be multiple, third party sources on this company. Just their own official websites. I am nominating Kulture Media Group for the same reason. Spellcast 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With 916 page views with 650 of those being unique visits I would say lack of notability is an false statement.
Date Day Unique Visits
Date Day Unique Visits
Rank Referrer Domains Unique Visits %
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 01:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub on a school with no sources, no importance asserted, and nearly no information even in the infobox. >Radiant< 13:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, self-promotion. Per WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Dahn 13:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - also nominating all of the related stub articles, Fabric 02, Fabric 03, Fabric 04, Fabric 05, Fabric 06, Fabric 07, Fabric 08, Fabric 09, Fabric 10, Fabric 11, Fabric 12, Fabric 13, Fabric 14, Fabric 15, Fabric 16, Fabric 17, Fabric 18, Fabric 19, Fabric 20, Fabric 21, Fabric 22, Fabric 23, Fabric 24, Fabric 25, Fabric 26, Fabric 27, Fabric 28, Fabric 29, Fabric 30, Fabric 31, Fabric 32, Fabric 33, Fabric 34. All are non-notable and fail WP:MUSIC and will never be expandable beyond the current track listing stubs. Otto4711 13:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 01:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
just can't see a good reason for this article, is there anything verifiable worth merging with Mortal Kombat (series)? Xorkl000 12:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Child performer who entered a televised talent show, and didn't even win. Although there was considerable media attention at the time, it was all directly related to the show, and she has no independent notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. Also relevant to this matter is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connie Talbot. J Milburn 12:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 00:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn blog. Alexa is 351,810. Main assertion of notability is exposing an internet meme, which has it's own article. The references listed just mention the blog in passing, not on it's own merit. PROD was added, but removed. Biggspowd 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 17:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable photographer. Previously deleted as db-bio. Recreated without adding assertion of notability. No reliable sources provided. Possible conflict of interest. --Evb-wiki 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 14:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but original research. A very poor quality article. A redirect to rape should be the answer, unless anyone can provide a sourced rewrite. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 00:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. There are news stories (City of Toronto PR coverage..ect), however Filmport hasn't even been built yet. Occupancy isn't even set untill early 2010. Hu12 11:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No real assertion of notability Stephenb (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to album article. Any information can be inserted there. ELIMINATORJR 23:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it is not necessary to have pages for every song in the album. the songs are not important enough to have a page. most of the pages don't have that much info anyway. if there is any useful info on the song pages, they can be merged into the album article (revelations). i am also nominating the other songs in the album, except for the singles. ▓░ Dark Devil ░▓ ( Talk ♥ Contribs ) 09:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, self-promotion. An infringement of WP:BIO and WP:NOT. Dahn 09:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 17:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biased article, hard to source and update and not really nessecary Bronzey 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 17:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod with no reason given. A synagogue that has all of the things you'd expect, and some very good kitchens apparantly. Unfortunately it has no claim to notability and no resources Nuttah68 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a good many local congregations would turn out to be notable if enough local material were examined, but it certainly isn't shown here. the name is he same problem as with churches that call themselves simply "Church of Christ" and the like--if the articles are kept the place name is added. DGG (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiant! (talk • contribs)
Pure PR piece. Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account, (User:Irishlaw), who admits on his userpage that he works for Global Market Insite and states "I perform in-house SEO - SEM". Has no other edits other than related to Global Market Insite. Was deleted twice previously. Hu12 23:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 01:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The font is identical to plain Terminal, and being intended for a different code page does not establish enough notability on its own. -- Prince Kassad 21:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. >Radiant< 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP Hu12 21:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above seems contradictory. It is not clear if no further discussion should be placed here or if discussion is acceptable as long as the information in the template is not modified. I will assume the latter until someone clarifies this.
Anyway, I am currently an employee of Monitor Group so I have a point of view here and will not actually start a new article, but there should be one. Monitor Group is one of the world's top five strategy consulting firms, see for example, this Business Wire article [41]. It emplys a long roster of important thought leaders from Michael Porter, Tom Nagle, Chris Argyris to Stuart Brand, Eamonn Kelly and Peter Scwartz (if you do not know who these people are you should not be commenting on an article about strategy consulting). It is a leader in a number of key areas including Scenario Thinking, Strategic Pricing, Marketing and Innnovation - note the recent acquisition of Doblin (a key thought leader when it comes to design and innovation).
So let's get a good article on Monitor Group up on Wilipedia! (For got to sign steven (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven Forth (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP (no consensus) Only two stated opinions. Re-re-listing is a bit too much. So previous AfD (keep) was taken in consideration too - Nabla 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously discussed at AFD, but was recently tagged for deletion via WP:PROD, the reasoning for deletion being lack of notability. As an article previously discussed at AFD, it was not eligible for PROD-based deletion but should have been brought here for re-consideration. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A clear result; the page had no defenders. TerriersFan 22:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reposted after being speedied under G11 and A7. Still reads as largely promotional and has very thin independent sources. Nevertheless, I think that it is better to establish a clear consensus before re-deleting. I have no opinion on redirect to One-click hosting (which has been suggested in the similar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box.net) but do not consider anything accept the name of the site worth merging so feel that deletion is still appropriate. Eluchil404 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician; fails WP:BAND. Article is consistantly added to (but never referenced) by an anon IP, who removes unreferenced tags, etc. Very few ghits return nothing substantial. Precious Roy 18:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song which fails WP:MUSIC. There's essentially nothing more in this article than the fact that the song exists and was released as a single. fuzzy510 07:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This, of course, does not prevent the article from being recreated if adequately referenced. Singularity 16:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about radio host/DJ. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. FamicomJL 03:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a product developed by a ministry. Google results are skewed by results returning "Jesus' ministry" (note the possessive) but adding "Revalesio" to the search doesn't return much beyond marketing pages and descriptions of the products. There is no sign that this has any reach beyond Revalesio, nevertheless that it has been covered by reliable sources. BanyanTree 07:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. David Mestel(Talk) 21:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the award is not asserted. Only source cited is the award's official web site, no independent sources at all. Might merit a mention in the organization's main article, but not an article by itself. List of winners merely replicates what is on the web site, and none of the winners are asserted as notable. Realkyhick 07:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A musical duo that "stays anonymous" as stated in the article. Notability very slim at best, and the "cult status" is not very widespread, if able to be found at all. Jmlk17 06:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not able to verify information given to establish notability. Only two sources listed, one unlinked and the other a fansite. Google turns up only a handful of relevant hits. Realkyhick 06:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable among comics artists. Rhinoracer 08:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Legion Companion" at Google Books has an 11-page interview with him. Also a Michigan State University Libraries page lists (towards the middle of the page):
I'm unlikely to find this book, living in New Zealand, to see what it says, but it seems like a source - anyone else got access to it? --Zeborah 09:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm obviously in favor of keeping it. Aapold 12:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://lambiek.net/artists/s/sherman_james.htm Rhinoracer 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debate on Wikipedia must be civil, true; but it is also robust rather than effete. I confess that this AFD nom made me angry, as nobody with more than a cursory knowledge of comics would have made it. Your online verification was desultory, to say the leastr. And, no, deletion debates are NOT intended to "scare straight" editors into improving an article. They are intended to vote on deletion. Please do not misuse this quite serious step, however good your intentions be. Thank you. Rhinoracer 16:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 16:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long list comprised almost entirely of external links to student governments at American universities and colleges. Might be more useful if the lists were internal, but most of these organizations are not notable enough to have their own articles. Pure listcruft. Realkyhick 06:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There was no support for the page being deleted. A significant number of editors are looking to merge the article but it is for those editors to propose and promote the merge as a normal post-AfD editorial action. TerriersFan 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The National Weather Service issues no such product defined as "Tornado Emergency". In fact, the article itself states "A Tornado Emergency is simply enhanced wording added, (at the discretion of the forcasters working the event), to a standard Tornado Warning". (emphasis mine) The Severe weather terminology (United States) page indicates that it is unofficial (which it kinda is). It is simply a stronger "call to action" used in a Tornado Warning product. For those reasons, I allege it fails to meet notability standards. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC) NB: I also link to Talk:Tornado warning#Suggested merging of "tornado emergency" into tornado warning in the interest of full disclosure. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 06:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't remember exactly how [David Andrea] disseminated [the tornado emergency] (probably in an SPS [Special Weather Statement] or SVS), but he did it because a large and intense tornado was approaching a relatively large metropolitan area. The terminology was intended to convey the exceptional seriousness of the event."
A tornado emergency is a rare, but important statement. The article should be kept to inform people what a tornado emergency is, and it is to large to merge with tornado warning. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 00:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC) 22:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado Emergency... It became apparent that unique and eye-catching phrases needed to be included in the products. … we used the phrase 'Tornado Emergency' to paint the picture that a rare and deadly tornado was imminent in the metro area. We hoped that such dire phrases would prompt action from anyone that still had any questions about what was about to happen.
The result was delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NFT Daniel Case 14:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal game played by limited people, unsourceable. Pilotboi / talk / contribs 05:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bduke 12:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant information already contained in Sigsbee Deep. The Afd nominated article contains no relevant additional information, and in fact contains unsourced nonsense that has been tagged as such for over a year with no cleanup. Maralia 20:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 00:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no way of editing this article where might approach NPOV. Although it represents a POV I happen to agree with, it's nothing but an extended argument against one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' scriptural redactions, and I'm afraid it's irremediably non-encyclopedic. The appropriate place for this kind of criticism is in articles on Bible translations where these insertions are actually made, such as New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures -- and more briefly and with less advocacy than here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 16:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear to be a term in common usage and the topic is covered at Resource depletion -- Alan Liefting talk 04:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD A7. MaxSem 08:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN amateur film. Alksub 03:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also including this in this nomination because its content is nearly identical:
PLEASE IF YOUR GOING TO DELETE A PAGE, Delete Slasher's Massacre, not the night they didnt come home— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edhegs (talk • contribs)
The result was keep. John254 01:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted via it's second AFD, but that deletion was overturned for lack of participation at this deletion review. It is relisted here for further consideration. (It was also recreated and speedied between the 2nd AFD and the DRV, but that has no bearing on this discussion.) I have no opinion. Chaser - T 02:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a copyright violation (WP:CSD#G12). Deletion performed by Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure by Haemo 06:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text taken directly from [49]. Alksub 02:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as original research. Eluchil404 18:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a role in romantic relationships (mostly homosexual) in anime and manga. This article has been tagged for cleanup for about 6 months with not much improvement, and is lacking in cited sources. Can't find anything in reliable sources that discuss the use of the term, so it appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability's requirement for coverage in said sources. Most of the article in general appears to be original research, especially the "types of ukes" section. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Synn is a non-notable developmental wrestler. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When/if she ever gets called up to the main roster, she should get an article. As of right now, she isn't at all notable. Nikki311 01:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 06:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
was up for A7 speedy, however it asserts significance. Unfortunatly,it appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY, it was establish only a month ago. Hu12 01:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Closing early due to the article creator blanking the page. Also, as others noted, could have met other speedy criteria as well. Andrew c [talk] 00:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation. Alksub 01:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article severely violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Many of its text has been copied directly from a similar article (Korean pride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)), which has been redirected to another page since January 2006 due to the same issue. Therefore, I am also nominating Korean pride for deletion as well. eDenE 00:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as self-admitted neologism per WP:SNOW. Daniel Case 14:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO, may not be notable. Cool Bluetalk to me 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any proof that this writing system is used anywhere else except the website PersianDirect.com . That organization calls itself "The Persian Linguistic Association", but it looks like a website operated by a few people and not an academic society. Most pages on that website, except the page that describes IPA2 are under construction and it also has a forum with almost zero messages. Searching Google for "Pársik IPA2" yields a lot of Wikipedia clones, but i couldn't find anything substantial that will prove its notability. Some people on the talk page proposed merging this into Romanization of Persian, but i disagree - a system that is only used by a very small group of people, who developed it by themselves shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia unless there are verifiable external sources about it. Amir E. Aharoni 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actress whose only credit to date was cut from the film. Non-notable. Cannot find any reliable soruces that say that her role was cut (the IMDb page, for instance, is completely blank). Prod removed without reason. hbdragon88 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Bduke 11:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a 9/11 conspiracy flash movie that does not establish, and indeed misrepresents its significance. The movie did not originate the "no-plane" hypothesis of the Pentagon attack as the article suggests. It was released (according to its site) in 2004. The "Hunt the Boeing" web site was online more than a year before that and was even linked from the original version of the site that now hosts the movie. The Popular Mechanics article and Snopes article do not mention the movie.
The result was delete.. CitiCat ♫ 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The required notability criteria does not seem to be satisfied for this newly published book - it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.". Caniago 04:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]