| < December 31 | January 2 > |
|---|
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this webgame under not meeting WP:WEB and WP:V. The prod was removed and sources were added. However, two of them are first-party sources from the game itself. The other source is rather minor and was deleted in April 2006. I believe this article cannot be sourced by a non-trivial third party for verification. Wafulz 00:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Reads like a CV. No citations or references. Meno25 00:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7. Article described an alleged cult with 14 members. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion Unverifiable cult, possible hoax. Contested prod and contested speedy delete (I'm concerned this may be an attack page against the Catholic Church). Google only brings up a video gaming guild[1]. Bwithh 01:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Above comment by User:Karken moved from article talk page by Bwithh 01:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Majorly (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct amusement park of questionable notability. ghits: [2] --NMChico24 01:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom. --NMChico24 01:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little context, little upon which to expand. NMChico24 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"A widespread term"? Nah, just another nn neologism, this one with 1110 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I haven't heard this term anywhere. --Japan became a first-world country after a bomb wiped out everyone. We Argentinians only managed to get two dictatorships and 10 million of poor people since WWII. 02:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete A7, by the looks of things, with an R1 on the redirect. --Dennisthe2 20:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was brought to my attention by Doc4life. It appears to be a hoax. It has no sources, has been marked as unreferenced since August, and I cannot find any information on google. Some of the information contained in the article points towards it being a hoax as well. Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable nightclub. Notability isn't established by who gives gigs there. No evidence of notability on Google. Contested prod. MER-C 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May fail WP:BIO, also no sources. Looking for more input. cohesion 02:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, no assertion of notability and incomprehensible in parts. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged and deleted Speedy A7, article was reposted. Article appears to be a copy-ad, and it clearly does not satisfy WP:COI or WP:MUSIC. Content is already on User DJ BRAZIL's User page, basically saying the same things. JRHorse 02:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an unconfirmed sequel of a game that just came out. The WP:PROD tag I added was contested, and the tag was added a second time shortly after that. Because a contested Prod should go to AfD, I'm listing it here. Even though I added the tag in the first place, I'm neutral, as I get a surprisingly large number of Google hits for "Red Steel 2". --Conti|✉ 03:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, not even a merge since it is not verifiable at all.--Chicbicyclist 10:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long list of every character that has ever been played on the John Boy and Billy radio show in North Caroline. It's too long to merge into the main article, so I copied the first couple characters onto the main article page. The rest can go. This is of interest to no one except die-hard fans who presumably already know each character's catchphrases. Tocharianne 04:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thinly veiled advertising and promotion for a single company, but the topic may be of interest so I didn't speedy. Should the article be deemed worthy of Wikipedia, it should be renamed and the external link removed. Akihabara 04:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an abbreviated, entirely unreferenced fork of Evolution of the horse. John254 04:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as nonsense, spam, empty and no assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged Speedy A7. Wikipedia is not an advertising service. User posted a similar article, Www.cgptw.com/mediawiki, presently under the CSD tag. JRHorse 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Blatantly bad-faith nomination. --210physicq (c) 06:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not too big a battle. Only double digit casualties (clearly not much). I don't think it's worthy of an article. User:WaWa12 5:43 AM UTC
The result was Keep Merge debates can take place on the article Talk pages. Eluchil404 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a failed attempt to merge two other articles, Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses and Practices of Jehovah's Witnesses. The article is too long and is better for now left as two separate articles. Editing has continued as normal on the two other pages. BenC7 05:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any reliable third-party sources on this topic, and the article has little assertion of notability. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Music. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so this article is at least two months early even if it is a hit single after it's release. Hatch68 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article states that PPDL is an acronym for a managerial style developed by a noted economist. However I do not see how that economist is notable, or how PPDL is notable. A search for "PPDL" yields ambiguous results, while "Procrastination Prioritization Delegation Litigation" does not come up with anything significant. WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT. JRHorse 06:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like some sort of satire or in-joke.--OinkOink 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notability: all this man has done is to cheat at chess: at best this is an ephemeral story; it is not at all notable and he is not at all notable in wiki terms. Springnuts 06:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Eqdoktor 09:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Being banned on this level, and the circumsances, make this a notable occurence. If there was an article "chess cheats" or "chess controversies" this could be merged, but until then it should be left. Citicat 20:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a contested prod with no reason given for removal of the tag. It is an unreferenced article about a person who is probably not notable. It is also likely a conflict of interest. Khatru2 06:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the kind of topic I like to nominate; it's just too subjective to be encyclopedic. I am the editor who created the featured list Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc. I also happen to be a female war veteran.
This list's inclusion standards are too broad and poorly defined to fit Wikipedia's mission, nor have they been followed. A Few Good Men contains no combat scenes and Lara Croft is a fictional archaeologist with no military experience. The fluid and usually informal nature of women's appearances in combat situations make inclusion standards deeply problematic. Would Full Metal Jacket qualify because of the female sniper in the final scene? Would the French resistance scene put Plenty on this list? How about Platoon for its gang rape? Or The Sound of Music because Julie Andrews and the children escape from the Nazis? Most Hollywood adventure films have at least one female in the cast and often place her in danger as a plot device. That would render this list untenable if it covered cinema alone, yet it aspires to represent all depictions in all media. This reads like a few editors' POV of we think these chicks are cool. I say delete. DurovaCharge! 06:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn musical artist, fails WP:BIO — Swpb talk contribs 08:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable album — Swpb talk contribs 08:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
del a brand with no claims of notability. 08:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs)
The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Organisation and its leaders which fail notability criteria TewfikTalk 08:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography article. Some google hits on his blog and radio work. Does not cite sources to claims. Unable to find any reference or confirmation on the assertion that he was inducted into GQ hall of fame. Eqdoktor 09:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect, although I couldn't see anything to merge. The history is still there if anyone else can see anything. Majorly (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted
Creating deletion discussion page for Nizami Gencevi because an identical but more extensive article exists under Nezami Ganjavi. Parishan 09:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only 44 unique Google hits [6], suggesting he's not that much of a controversy in his country or internationally- claims to newspaper coverage are included, but are vague. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted once as dicdef plus a weblink,. now created as even more blatantly a puff for the website. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Majorly (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the first to admit that I'm no great judge of rock band notability, but this article has no third party coverage and little other indication that it meets WP:MUSIC. Sandstein 10:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. -Docg 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
uninteresting, incomplete, potentially enormous... It may be tilting at windmills to try to get rid of this, but this list has such vague and sweeping criteria for inclusion that it could potentially grow to literally tens of thousands of entries, or more, and still be incomplete. And to what purpose? The result would be of mild interest, at best. I think this sort of thing is better served through categories. Brianyoumans 10:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC) Oh, and there are presently NO sources or references in the article. Not every town named "Washington" was named after George. --Brianyoumans 10:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced material cannot be added to articles, and there was not a single reference, so it cannot be merged. Majorly (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game character. Contested prod. MER-C 11:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete.. Kungfu Adam (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable magazine. This not-really-an-article-at-all (see difference over the last seventeen months, never even describes what the magazine actually is) has only the assertion that an iconic figures of manga (unreferenced, see Satoshi Urushihara, seems a little POV) draws the cover. Not really all that great an assertion of notability, given he's done a lot of that. To cap it all off, no reliable (multiple) third-party sources to fufill Wikipedia's policy of Verifiability. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted (A7). -- JLaTondre 15:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A company with no assertion of notability at all, as well as failing to have any independant third-party sources, let alone the multiple required to fufill WP:V. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 12:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep by Moving to William Niven. Cbrown1023 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails verifiability WP:V; almost no Google hits [9]. The article claims they no longer exist. How do we know this, or the cited book, isn't a hoax? Akihabara 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable [12]; we don't in general need articles on covers of magazines. Listcruft. Akihabara 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two years ago, this article was nominated for deletion, and no consensus was reached. The community has given enough time for supporters of keeping the article to make their additions and referencing to keep the article, but it is now more clear than ever that this article should be deleted on grounds of original research, non-notability, and it being impossible to reach standards required of verifiability and reliability. As another editor stated: "EU seems to be notable primarily in the minds of the advocates, and scientifically it is less notable than the sum of its parts."[13] Any information contained in the article that is relevant to uncontroversial science (e.g. descriptions of plasma, z-pinches, or electric discharge) is already present at the relevant articles. Here are the reasons for deletion of the rest of the content:
--ScienceApologist 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary moved to the Talk page. Please keep discussion there, this page is for the voting.
The result was keep. Majorly (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted as it is an article of a single episode of a TV series - therefore (in my opinion) is notable enough to have an article on its own. The information contained within this article is quite similar to that of the actual The Nanny (TV series) article, with a few exceptions. It is my opinion that this article should be deleted, or have its contents summarised, and added to The Nanny (TV series) - creating a redirect. Chrisch 13:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should this be applied to The Nanny as well? Chrisch 12:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close it. It appears at least some of these have been nominated separately. — CharlotteWebb 03:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WITHDRAWN because most of the articles have now been listed separately here. Otto4711 23:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
A mass nomination of all the articles currently housed under Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation. In every case I think categories are the correct way to catalog this information (and in most every case it appears there is already a category for members of the fictional profession) and in a number of cases the information shouldn't be here to begin with on the basis of subjectivity/POV problems. All the concerns I expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional government agents apply here. Otto4711 13:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, original research, created and maintained almost entirely by one author with the recently stated aim, "to provide a focal point for discussion and definition of this term". Both Client-server and SOA are legitimate existing terms, but this combination of them purports to be a new and specific thing, about which this article is the main authority, and about which it is extremely prescriptive (see all the bold and uncited statements as to what this 'technology' must be in the article). See WP:NFT for example, and other discussion on the article's Talk page. Nigelj 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHA Saltburn, this article has no assertion of notability. —Psychonaut 14:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true, it is a registered charity. 2)The hostel (and building in its own right) are both of considerable significance and as such demand a page entry of their own. 158.180.64.10 16:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. (due to lack of consensus to delete - redirecting and/or merging are options still open to editors as normal)-Docg 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school. Tarret 14:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable radio show. I think it's on a campus station. – ipso 14:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Eluchil404 08:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable local movie event; contested speedy. NawlinWiki 14:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Cbrown1023 18:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article consists of an unsourced hagiography of the Grandmaster, a section of linkspam, and "to be continued." ➥the Epopt 14:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://hometown.aol.com/hplichta/page3.html It needs rewriting anyway. --Bejnar 01:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say keep this. The history of Taekwon-do is shrouded in all kinds of mystery and needs clarification on a larger scale. This seems to do that. I admit that it needs to be rewritten but more importantly it needs to be finished. Chin Mu Kwan seems to be as important as any of the other taekwon-do organizations that are linked here. --Rasputin13 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC) There is great debate to the history of TKD. I have met some CTF members and they seem to be fairly true to the tenets but then it is just a sample. I say leave it under CTF as the organization and founder are one and the same to a certain extent. Adding to all the multiple histories of TKD can only help.[reply]
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 19:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strange article, mixing completly disparate concepts with no NPOV common denominator. 'Fascism', is in modern political context almost exclusively used as a pejorative, and the common denominator of all tendencies mentioned in the article is that they have opponents that have branded them as such. --Soman 16:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've had a day to reflect on this (rather than just jumping in and reflexively arguing against deletion). Judging from the comments I've read here, there seems to be a serious misunderstanding of what the article is actually about. People seem to have misconstrued the title. (Possibly it could be modified slightly, if that's the case.) If the title were, say, "Neo-fascist religious movements", then I could easily understand the objections -- in fact, I would almost certainly agree with them. But the actual title -- "Neo-fascism and religion" -- indicates that the purpose of the article is to discuss whatever connections there may be between those entities. It doesn't presume that all of the religions that are discussed in the article do, in fact, have neo-fascist elements. The whole point, as I see it, is to help readers sort out which, if any, of them really do have such elements.
My impression is that some of the people who are supporting deletion really just want the subject to go away, because they find it offensive. But whether anybody likes it or not, it's a fact that countless such assertions are made about one or another religion, sect, etc. To simply delete this article -- rather than improving it -- would be to pretend otherwise, and would be a real disservice to Wikipedia readers, depriving them of an opportunity to learn about such issues from a neutral source. This article has a number of serious editors who in my judgement are committed to the need for an evenhanded and impartial article. Whatever flaws there may be should be eliminated through the usual WP editorial process. Deletion is far too extreme a "remedy" -- in fact, it would just be a copout, taking the easy way out, instead of doing the work to improve the article. Cgingold 15:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable album from a non-notable group, WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have listened to this album. It's got some nice music, but so do 10,000 other albums that have been booted off Wikipedia. It fails WP:MUSIC. Note that the antecedent group, Shalsheles, does not have an article. Note also that, in more than a full year, only a single user has worked on this article. It might just be an advertisement. YechielMan 16:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V -Nv8200p talk 16:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majorly (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable university residence, first para is from 2nd para of Temple_University#Residential_Halls, history is copy vio from here, remaining portions seem to be original research Delete KnightLago 16:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable neologism OriginalJunglist 17:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography, claims to be world renowned photographer but has no significant google hits. Does not cite any sources to back up any claims of notability. At best 6th place winner in a state photography competition Eqdoktor 17:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - just a class at a high school. Even if it's a notable school that's nothing special. RossPatterson 18:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable teacher, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable - just a teacher at a high school. Even if the school is notable, the teacher isn't automatically. RossPatterson 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tarinth 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this is notable or not, though the article certainly doesn't provide context telling me who is in the association, why they are so important etc. Equally, I've no reason to suspect they're not notable and a few people have noted that they're not speedyable.
So consider this a good old fashioned nomination for discussion --Robdurbar 18:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable album. (aeropagitica) 19:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was on prod, now taking to AFD. Non-notable album released by an obscure independent label. I've merged the information to American Idol (Season 5) and Ayla Brown. I have nothing against Brown, and I'm sure it's a great CD, it's just that I don't think it's well-known or notable enough to publish an encyclopedic entry on it. I wouldn't want to encourage all indie acts to have all of their albums on the Wikipedia, because most of them don't. What makes this album more special than other indie albums? Pink moon 1287(email|talk|user) 18:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable Gloucestershire company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 19:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable disco company. Google returns 15 results. No mention of size of the company, value, employees, etc. Salad Days 18:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Transwikied to Wiktionary. (aeropagitica) 18:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, slang for "no". Delete or redirect to No. —EdGl 18:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 18:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a website that seems totally non-notable in all respects. Egil 18:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable student revue, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a law school musical organization that I believe fails the notability standards for organizations. Although some student-run revues can become notable by, for example, spawning famous comedy troupes (like Second City), not all student-run revues are notable. Please note that there seem to be several similar articles, and I'm pretty sure most law schools, and probably most undergrads, have some sort of similar show. One such article was discussed, with no consensus, here. TheOtherBob 19:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A7, but contested. Some evidence of external coverage, but not a major film at all. Guy (Help!) 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable book, WP:BK refers. (aeropagitica) 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy as spam, but might possibly be salvageable. Publisher is not a vanity press, seems to be a specialist educational press. No evidence this is a significant book or series. Guy (Help!) 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. OR spam for an unpublished book based on NN web content. No independent sources cited. -- IslaySolomon | talk 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google shows 10 hits, five of which are directly affiliated with the web site. Page offers no evidence of notability for the book, much less the school it's based on. The book is unranked on amazon. If the book becomes well-known after publication, then a page might be appropriate, but right now, it's pretty hard to see notability. -FisherQueen 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Origional Research Farside6 20:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep after the rewrite and inclusion of sources. (aeropagitica) 18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam; incoherent business-speak; unreferenced. Withdraw per proper references and rewrite. Salad Days 21:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Eluchil404 08:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Co-author of an unpublished book, the article on which is also up for deletion. No evidence provided that this person meets WP:BIO. IslaySolomon | talk 21:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; subject gets about 700 Ghits, most of which appear to be blogs. [21] RedRollerskate 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable website, WP:WEB refers. (aeropagitica) 18:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was speedy deleted under A7 and recreated. No assertion of notability is made, fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and, WP:V. Should be deleted. RWR8189 21:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 19:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable, incomplete project. Simply enough, something that may never be done and has little individual value. Possibly on the Wii and/or Linux pages. Scepia 21:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected. Per policy, duplicate articles are merged, not deleted. The original content was also simply copied from Features new to Windows Vista (which is now the target article) on 2 october, so not much is lost. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate content from Features new to Windows Vista. Themodernizer 21:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted, advertising, NPOV issues. MidgleyDJ 21:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable company, WP:CORP refers. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isnt asserted. No reliable sources cited, non-neutral advertising material. If the notability cannot be asserted using reliable sources (and the NPOV corrected) prior to the end of the AfD it should probably be deleted. MidgleyDJ 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (aeropagitica) 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a notable article. Besides, training methods that were even more widely used (crash training, for example), were deleted on the grounds that they weren't notable articles. Farside6 22:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep — reasons for nomination were invalid; nominator has withdrawn nomination; WP:SNOW. ➥the Epopt 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While these are admiral goals, they are goals for the future nonetheless. WP:NOT#CBALL, and from there "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." While notable, these are goals of a political party, and thus not certain to take place. I would argue for either a Merge into a democratic party policy article or Delete KnightLago 22:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination, is now, or shortly will be a current event. So makes no sense to delete now. Keep. KnightLago 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SwedishConqueror 01:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)User:SwedishConqueror[reply]
The result was Keep Eluchil404 09:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. I still think this article does not assert enough notability to be included. Delete. -- lucasbfr talk 22:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable group, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
del. nonnotable latin dance company. `'mikka 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Cbrown1023 19:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, who is to say these books are any better or worse than others in the field. WP is not Amazon.com! Steve (Slf67) talk 22:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Following the discussion I'll concur with Merge into respective articles --Steve (Slf67) talk 00:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable television programme. (aeropagitica) 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a local (educational?) television show, if it exists at all. No Google hits that I can see, but I may be missing something so I bring it to the wider audience. Please note that Gilbertie's herb gardens has already been deleted, as the content was not relevant ("Harry is a cool guy", or something to that effect). The Ebby Parts was deleted before, but G4 does not apply to speedy deletions. -- nae'blis 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable organiation, WP:ORG refers. (aeropagitica) 17:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability not asserted; reads like promotional material. Along with Dominic Davies article forms a small walled garden created by a single-purpose account. For GHits I have only been able to find amazon, wikipedia, own website, and publisher; nothing to satisfy WP:NOTABILITY.
Accordingly I add Dominic Davies to this nomination. Akihabara 12:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 17:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Child actor who had a significant part in one film when he was 5 years old; nothing since. Would be an easy speedy a7 if not for the film role. I don't think it's enough. NawlinWiki 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep by Moving to List of Major League Baseball free agents 2006-2007. Cbrown1023 19:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper or Sports Illustrated. This is information which will have to be kept up to date as each player signs a contract, and, based on history, it's unlikely that this will occur. And once they're all signed, what happens to this article? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complaints have been made that this is inherently POV, or that there is no need to single out a single day of the year for environmental coverage. Beland 23:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the (note: proposed) Wikipedia:Notability (academics) tests. Aspden's fringe ideas, which make up the bulk of this article, are not even known, let alone recognized as "expert" by independent sources. For non-experts reading this AfD, it's important to note that many of the claims made in the article (e.g., that he has debunked Einstein or is being oppressed by the mainstream scientific establishment) are simply silly. The "groundbreaking" ideas focused on by the article that make an implicit claim to notability appear to all be self-published on his webpage. Sdedeo (tips) 00:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned author of the biographical article is a known and notable British physicist in scientific community worldwide already for about half a century; it has published over one 100 scientific articles since 1951, many of them in peer-review journals (eg. 9 papers in @Physics Letters A since 1972; 24 papers in Europhysics Letters, former Lettere al Nuovo Cimento since 1975; etc.), has several Brithish and U.S. patents one of them under research since May 2006 supported by DARPA and the Aviation and Missile Command in the U.S. [29], has several earlier physics books since 1966 published and his work has been mentioned in several occasions in mainstream physics publications, for e.g.:
In any case, the article as it stands is also wholly unacceptable. It assumes the truth of his theories, and--while admitting there are criticisms--goes on in a manner as if here were none. I think a NPOV article could be written, but he and his supporters would find it highly unsatisfactory, for the plain honest presentation of the material shows it not accepted. The edit history reveals that his supporters have resisted any critical comments. I can see no basis we can refuse to include an article. However I do not see how one could be written. I certainly would not attempt to do so against the expected reverts. DGG 06:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]