The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be an exact copy of Intermodal Transit Center Station and was probably created in error, judging by the odd repetition of "station" in the title. Cnbrb 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete; I've created a redirect to Murderball as suggested. Flowerparty☀ 05:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Today, I looked at this article with a view to deleting this recently added content as unreferenced, and in accordance with Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Then I considered the fact that this article has been tagged as unreferenced for over six months. I wondered if the whole thing wasn't unreferenced, unreferenceable, and essentially made up in school one day. I did my homework; googling "Murder ball" turned up this page as the first hit, and many references to the film Murderball, about the sport of wheelchair rugby. When I excluded "Murderball" and "rugby" from the results, I got almost 10,000 hits; seems there's enough out there for an encyclopedia article, but on closer inspection it's a real hodge-podge of articles about dodgeball variations, articles that happen to juxtapose "murder" and "ball" for some reason, references to Nick Cave (who knew?), and a few links that discuss games something like what is on this page. In short, murder ball - in the sense used in this article - seems to be a catch-all term for any number of variations on full or partial contact ball games that are, well, made up in school one day. I was tempted to just replace the page with a redirect to either the film Murderball or to dodgeball, or with a disambiguation page pointing to both, but I'm not sure that's emphatic enough. I think this page needs to be deleted and buried. When that's done, a new page - disambiguation, probably - can be created. Eron Talk 00:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Flowerparty☀ 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand peoples need to put information about everything on Wikipedia. But three articles full of characters that only appear once in a 60 episode series is a little overkill. None of it is cited, and I think I can state truthfully that none of it is neccasary. This information would be better suited to be on an Avatar Wiki. The Placebo Effect 23:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:
(talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete: This is a poorly written article about an exceptionally non-notable individual, and this AfD is going off the rails. I was watching the game, and he certainly got a good round of applause and prime focus for a couple of minutes, but he was in no highlights later on in the evening, no mention in any national media, and has largely been forgotten one day later. Let this be clear: this isn't about lack of any real 14-minutes-of-fame notability, there are BLP concerns, too. He's a 17 year old kid, he was a hero for about 5 minutes, and everyone moved on. We shall, too. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has no notability. What he did didn't affect the outcome of the game; only one run was scored in that frame after he caught the ball, and they won 6-3. Let's just have articles for every single fan who ever tried to catch a foul ball. Ksy92003(talk) 23:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it. If the ball was caught it would have been the 2nd out and Lowell's sac fly would have ended the inning. The Sox might have lost because then Manny might not even get up in the bottom of the ninth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.238.172 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK, POV fork, and unsourced list in violation of WP:BLP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable flautist. No evidence that he passes WP:N. Tagged with notability concerns since June with no improvement. No references. Google hits very low, "Dexter Norville" flute OR flautist -wikipedia producing only 7 hits. Prod removed by an editor who wrongly thought that Norville had won the BBC Young Musician of the Year award, whereas the article in fact only refers to him winning a prize of the same name in a local competition in his University town (Guildford, not Guilford, being the base of the U. of Surrey). BencherliteTalk 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 14:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article in its current state fails to assert the notability of an India-based coffee company. Not a chain, only one indepedantly owned store. Instead of a CSD notice, wanted to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Luke! 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded, the prod was removed. The prodder expressed concerned of notability, and I also believe the list is completely unencyclopediac. UsaSatsui 22:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The precedent has also been solidified by the deletion of the other, similar articles that were on AFD. Danaman5 06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Sex abuse cases in American public schools (Iowa) this is a WP:COATRACK for WP:BLP and WP:NOTNEWS violations.
The result was delete, lack of verifiability and notability. —Verrai 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game project, possibly even a hoax article. Not sure whether it's a hoax or actually a real project, but judging from a google search it's a hoax as there seems to be no real information about the game available. All the google hits lead to the SomethingAwful forums (such as here or here) or sites like this. Aqwis 22:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete the Zybourne Clock entry.
I'm really new to this "talking on wickerpedia" concept, so I'm unfamiliar with much of the code, but I just want to say that I use this page to watch for ZC (That's what all my friends and I call it. We're really big fans!) updates, and if it's deleted, I don't really know where I'll be able to go to follow the development and view updates now that the project has become incredibly secretive.
From what I know, the game's development is taking place almost entirely between members of the SomethingAwful forums via PM, email, fax, and/or old fashioned "snail mail", so I imagine that's why finding information is very difficult. I can personally verify that the game is indeed real, and not a hoax, as I was present on the forums during the earliest stages of the project, when the collaborators were openly allowing material to be leaked. If I remember correctly, the members involved in the project had even set up their own forum at one point, though I think they abandoned it soon afterward, due to the heavy, heavy traffic they were receiving from fans of the game.
I also disagree on the fact that it breaks the "Crystal Ball Policy", because almost all the information in the entry, except for information on Dr. Zybourne's relationship with Sylus (which is speculation, I will agree), is correct and has come straight from the developers themselves. I personally believe that the only reason that sources cannot be provided is because most of this information has been taken from direct quotes (e.g. One of the creators did in fact provide the concept regarding the timelines replacing one another and did provide the "ball knocking another ball off a cliff" metaphor) , and the secrecy of the project and the need of it's developers to keep so much from being leaked makes it difficult to provide a concrete link.
Anyway, that's my two cents. Please don't delete the article. LittleBarnacle 21:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
of course all hits are SA, its a game being made by the forum members, or "goons", if you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.191.213 (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not remove this page, as the Zybourne Clock project has many followers eagerly awaiting its release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.157.153 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ((prod)) tag I placed on this page was removed, but I still think this article should be considered for deletion, so I am opening up a discussion. The creator and only major contributor to this article, User:TEntertainment has been banned indefinitely for using Wikipedia for advertisement as of October 5, 2007. I feel that because of this, this article, essentially an advertisement for an album released by his company, should be removed to allow for organic recreation by the community, if the album meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was take this article off the air. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, vanity, original research Rapido 22:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Wikidemo's unchallenged arguments carry the day and are persuasive that the topic meets the general notability guidelines. The reamaining arguments related to importance/significance lack conviction that the article fails CSD A7. -- Jreferee t/c 06:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the notability criteria and can't find anything that says any political party is by default notable. There are many political parties in the UK. Every local and general election there are people who stand for various parties formed in the pub. In searching for sources for this party I found them mentioned on this list which includes " Tiger's Eye", "Telepathic Partnership", etc. Then I found this List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005, which suggests that there is an intention to have an article on each of these parties. Now if that is the case then I think we need some consensus criteria on what makes a political party notable. My suggestion would be the party either has an elected candidate, or has made a significant impact as demonstrated by reliable sources. Neither of these cases applies to Church of the Militant Elvis Party. So my feeling is that this article, and others like it, should be deleted. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 22:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ((prod)) tag I placed on this page was removed, but I still think this article should be considered for deletion, so I am opening up a discussion. The creator and only major contributor to this article, User:TEntertainment has been banned indefinitely for using Wikipedia for advertisement as of October 5, 2007. I feel that because of this, this article, essentially an advertisement for his company, should be removed to allow for organic recreation by the community, if the company meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 22:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - Copyvio concerns rendered moot by Wwwhatsup. If the station was significant in keeping the free radio flag flying in the late 60s, the relaible sources likely are in old papers rather than on the Interent. Strip away the copyvio discussion and the only thing remaining is no consensus. -- Jreferee t/c 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable pirate station, copied from website http://www.gunfleet.com/page13/page13.html Rapido 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and move to Salacoa Creek. The article has been significantly improved since the start of this debate. Espresso Addict 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing, possible copyvio. Prod twice removed by creator. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 22:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both Consensus is that neither article meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 07:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need all of this duplicate information from this article? It is a fictional character that is already noted in the article for the movie. I am proposing a Delete and Redirect to Die Hard. Rjd0060 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
Delete both and redirect per nom. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another non-notable pirate station, vanity Rapido 22:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 14:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both. - Consensus is that neither topic meets the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 07:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this count as advertising ? As per previous tag, there seems to be a conflict of interest regarding the creator of this page. thisisace 21:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was delete. --Aarktica 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable station, vanity Rapido 21:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Aarktica 08:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable musical group; suspected vanity Rapido 21:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Aarktica 09:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
advertisement for non-notable pirate radio station Rapido 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Consensus is that the topic does not meet the General notability guideline. -- Jreferee t/c 08:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
advertisement for non-notable radio station Rapido 21:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable web site -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Single-purpose accounts aside, the question of reliable third-party sources has not been addressed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 13 October 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)) . |
Procedural nomination. Originally prodded by Icerainbow (talk · contribs), and deleted, then restored at DRV. Previous AFD nomination is here. Wafulz 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When did I prod the article? It was done by icerainbow. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied (G12). -- lucasbfr talk 23:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This and the related article Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development appear to be just advertising, but I want a second opinion on this. thisisace 20:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violate WP:NOTNEWS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. - Consensus is that the topic does not meet the General notability guideline. -- Jreferee t/c 08:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom by User:Rtphokie, I abstain. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was all articles deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. I searched for "Clockwork Universe" with "Adam J. Sims" and got no results except copies of this article.
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was delete. --Aarktica 09:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-existent art movement. Per WP:NEO and WP:OR: no GHITS as an art movement, no published sources. Freshacconci | Talk 19:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 19:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sources other then their own website. It is a single sentence long. -Icewedge 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was stubify and keep. GRBerry 14:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not about the place Karlići, a village in Croatia. It very briefly presents a supposed apparition of the Virgin Mary in that village as if it is fact. No sources. Violates NPOV. Ward3001 19:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Aarktica 09:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was PROD'ed in the past, but it didnt get deleted (obviously). This is about a non-notable band. The one external link is titled "The only known place to find Downfall's music", which pretty much makes my case about this being a NN band. Rjd0060 19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only Bus route 7 in the world, in addition, it is not a notable bus route over the others Mhking 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional flying machine. I can't even verify this. Basil Richards 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I am myself conflicted as to whether this article deserves inclusion. I would be inclined to say no, as none of the aircraft listed are in and of themselves notable, but I'll leave that discussion up to another AfD debate. No prejudice against a new AfD in the future. —Verrai 19:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been covered and discussed on various avenues over months/years, including a previous Afd and once again it is being put up for WP:NOT#INFO and WP:N. The majority of the keep arguments in the last Afd were a combination of WP:LOSE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BHTT, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ALLORNOTHING, whereas the delete were mainly based around WP:NOT#INFO and WP:N. The prose in the lead of this article is already in Singapore Airlines, as is the current and historical fleet (small tables). The last section is a WP:TRIVIA section, and the massive table is not encyclopaedic, against WP:NOT#INFO, and as notability is not inherited, it also fails WP:N, as the fleet is not notable without being related to the airline operating it. There is no merging to be done. One argument which may come up is that the main article is already long enough, although these main articles in a lot of places go against WP:ADVERT and against Airline Project guidelines. Russavia 18:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the ELs, I couldn't find one independent source except for the Power of Polaroid article where he is mentioned in passing because his photo is in another artist's show. The band has yet to release a CD/album. I'm getting a distinct feeling of walled garden from the group and its members, but certainly very local notability. Pigman 18:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 19:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in violation of WP:V and WP:OR. The article is ranking airlines in order from largest, yet there is no sources cited which verify that this ranking is in fact correct, failing WP:V. Refer to Talk:List of largest airlines in Oceania for examples of how some airlines are missing completely from this 'ranking', and as they are missing this fails WP:OR. Note also the figure for Qantas says 219 but the source (which I placed) says 129 (this is an ongoing dispute over at Qantas as to whether to place precendence on figures from company PR over independent regulatory authorities). This is one of a series of articles (see See also in the nominated article for more articles which are also in violation of WP:V and WP:OR) Russavia 17:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | The official Aust. aircraft register has Qantas as having 129 aircraft, 1 editor wants to use Qantas PR marketing materials, now this article is an absolute joke - fails verification.[1] | ” |
Can we close this as i have done the work to fix this page.Sparrowman980 02:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advert for a recently published book. Article written by a single-purpose account. -- RHaworth 17:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: I moved this over to WP:RFD. The discussion can be picked up here. Non-admin closure. --UsaSatsui 22:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article it's redirecting to has been re-written (by me), and no longer contains an entry for this client command. M2Ys4U (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced jargon definition. Fails WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:RS. M2Ys4U (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeouch! This article is nothing more than a POV fork largely created by a single user through original research so that he then can cite to this Wikipedia article in a personal letter writing campaign to Royal Dutch Shell. Among the many policies this violates, *** Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, *** Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and *** Wikipedia is not a battleground *** come to mind. By adhering to the GA requirement that a topic is to stay focused without going into unnecessary details, and the requirement that only material that is independent of the subject be used in an article, this topic could be covered adequately within the Royal Dutch Shell article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a non-notable webcomic. The only references are self-references and a forum post (failing WP:RS); this article is little more than a list of characters. Being hosted on Keenspot shouldn't trump WP:OR, WP:RS, and shouldn't automatically confer notability.
The result was no consensus. — madman bum and angel 05:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serious WP:BLP violation for naming his underage student, Karl D., with whom he was in a sexual relationship. The BLP policy states: "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.... When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." There are several sources, but each one of them is just a news report. 1of3 15:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haiduc, you quote WP:BLP, but have somehow missed the relevant section of that page. For convenience, here it is in full:
“ | Articles about living people notable only for one event
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. |
” |
Off I go to put this paragraph in my other AfDs!
Dybryd 02:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 14:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be nothing notable about this mod. This article is essentially the manual for the mod, and the 'history' information is not reliably verifiable. I can't see how this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Che Nuevara 15:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to C. Peter Wagner. WjBscribe 19:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable religious teaching. The article's claims to notability come primarily from Google searches which return about 25 hits. eaolson 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was fluush. DS 22:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability for this or any other game called whoosh. No sources to back up the "history". Contested prod. Fabrictramp 14:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new mobile phone handset. Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G11 as advertising. It was in the category of speedy deletion candidates for many hours but no admin (myself included) felt willing to go through with it. I have refused the speedy and taken it to AfD. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 14:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to assert notability. I am also nominating
(an apparently related article) for the same reason. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to NaNoWriMo. Espresso Addict 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for deletion based on notability criteria.
If the uncited information in the article is accurate, an event with only 1,000 participants, that has no official sponsor, that has only existed for 3 years and that has had a its web site go dead, does not meet Wikipedia notability requriements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.40 (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The result was garbage. DS 22:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious blatant hoax--name is intended as a homonym of "urinal cakes"--yet both G1 and A7 speedies were denied. --Finngall talk 14:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to 2007_American_League_Division_Series#Game_2.2C_October_5_2 by User:UsaSatsui. Whilst his edit summary said he was leaving the AfD open, the consensus this far reeks of snowballs. As for the redirect, that's probably best for WP:RFD to decide. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may be wrong but I don't think this incident is really notable for an individual article even though it may have an effect on the series. I would mostly suggest maybe a merge with 2007 American League Division Series but otherwise Delete per nn nature of the incident not to mention there no links and sources for that. JForget 14:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 22:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism. Cannot find Google references, even one's related to the claimed Coiner of the term. OAL is a Hardware Abstraction (purely technical) in Windows CE that has absolutely no relation. Jimmi Hugh 13:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Consensus is that none of the topics meet the general notability guidelines due to WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jreferee t/c 07:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-existent New York City Subway station. It is proposed to be a part of the Second Avenue Subway, but construction is neither started, nor scheduled, nor funded. The current forecasted completion date is 2020, but as there is no funding, this is merely a guess. If it is built, it would be many years from now. There have been various Second Avenue Subway proposals since the 1920s, of which this is merely the most recent. Nothing verifiable or notable can be said about the station until construction (if it happens) gets much closer. See WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL Marc Shepherd 13:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the identical reasons:
The result was Delete--JForget 00:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTE and WP:NOR. It may be worth mentioning that I am the original creator of the article. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 11:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 12 October 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)) . |
![]() |
Note to closing admin
Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time:
|
Yet more lists of fictional substances. Completely contrived from primary sources, these articles are nothing more than original research (and at least one admits as much in the first paragraph -- "Grouping is done by what seems most likely."). We are an encyclopedia, not a place to list everything made up in the comic book/sci-fi universe. Non-notable, trivial comicruft.
Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources
Policy shortcut: WP:PSTS Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. Sources may be divided into three categories:
Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; United Nations Security Council resolutions; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. A journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that sum up other secondary sources and primary sources. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. For example, articles signed by experts in a general or specialized encyclopedia can be regarded as reliable sources. Secondary and tertiary sources should be used in a way that does not give rise to new analyses, syntheses or original conclusions that are not already present in the sources. In short, the policy of "No original research" requires that wikipedia users stick to the sources."
In the case of Judge Dredd, the source is the movie and/or comic books. but those are considered PRIMARY souces. As stated above, a lack of reliable TERTIARY sources does not make something non-notable.--Marhawkman 02:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability (fiction):A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
The topic is "Fictional elements". Does it qualify? I think it does. The concept itself is individually notable.
"No Original Research" DOES NOT preclude using Primary sources. Original research is creating your own information. The articles in question are derived from a variety of sources that are independantly verifiable and thus do not fall under that category of original research.
Last I checked, deriving an article from comic books was sufficient to satisfy "reliable sources".--Marhawkman 22:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
**Exactly. Wikipedia's notability rules are extremely idiotic and should be ignored at all costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account has been indefinitely blocked.[reply]
*Strong keep. Very notable. Also not original research, it's all sourced. Primary sources are the best types of sources for fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) 01:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC) — Wutizevrybudylookingat? (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Account has been indefinitely blocked.[reply]
...fictional concepts are deemed notable if they have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. For articles about fictional concepts, "reliable secondary sources" cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is "real-world content".
That's just it. The Article in question DOES fulfill the requirements of WP:Notability and WP: Reliable Sources. The article is about a vague concept, thus anything that uses the concept would be considered a secondary source. The list could use some fact checking, but it exists to illustrate the concept. the sheer size of the list should give you an idea as to the "realworld impact" that the concept has. --Marhawkman 21:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid creating new articles on fictional topics that lack substantial real-world content (and ideally an out-of-universe perspective) from the onset. Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors.
Notice the word prove. Please show me where there is any acceptable source (as defined in WP:FICTION) for 99% of the information contained in this list. Please keep in mind this is a list, not an article, and so the content is what establishes notability. /Blaxthos 07:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. As per my closure over here, this doesn't have the usual level of consensus. The keep arguments comprise mainly WP:WAX, WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOTINHERITED, whereas the deletes are more persuasive. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 12 October 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)) . |
![]() |
Note to closing admin
Several AfDs regarding the same basic subjects/premises are open concurrently, and largely involve the same editors (and same viewpoints). It may be beneficial to consider the following AFDs at the same time:
|
Entirely original research (from primary sources only) that attempts to catalogue every fictional chemical substance used in fiction. The list is hopelessly large in scope, and is nothing more than comicruft. Merge any relevant information into the parent articles, but we shouldn't be a repository for comic book/sci-fi trivia. See a similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional applications of real materials.
The result was delete by WP:SNOW as a hoax or non-notable. Bearian 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article while sorting through uncategorized pages. Delete due to notability issues. Google test produced 2 unrelated hits Lenticel (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep (also taking into account the duplicate nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salian Frankish Mythology). This discussion seems to be the result of a scholarly dispute. It should first be attempted to be resolved through discussion and merging, not through deletion. Sandstein 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
essay by Rokus01 (talk · contribs). no such term. Valid material belongs merged to Continental Germanic mythology. c.f. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. dab (𒁳) 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature with timestamp properly sourced and pretends nothing more than an assessment to the pre-christian believes of an important Germanic tribe, that has the bad luck of being sparsely documented. However, their history has been discussed by experts and their believes are partly reconstructed. Not any quote has been given to sustain the claim of some bunch of "students" that there is no such thing as a Salian identity or background. Their arguments are of an hypercritical nature, of the kind that could be employed to deny or delete anything. Still, the assessment is of academic level and all sourced. I suspect some bad faith and kind of sockpuppets (none of the two I am talking of have an very impressive and diverse Wikipedia history, and opera singer Almira [13] presents herself suddenly as an expert in Frankish history) that have the intention to invalidate the credibility of Salian existence. Really, I am astonished by this display of apparent hostility. Rokus01 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A radio presenter who does not meet notability standards. Although some of the information is verifiable, there are very limited third-party sources about him that would assert the notability of the individual. Only sources available are the Web Archive's copy of 100.7 Heart FM and 100 Century FM presenter profile pages, and his page on 96 Trent FM's website. This does not have any WP:BLP issues, it is just that he probably doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability or WP:BIO as standards. Solumeiras talk 10:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, without prejudice to someone being WP:BOLD and creating a redirect in line with any of the suggestions below (of course). Carlossuarez46 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While recently created as a stub, this article seems to have been created based on a misunderstanding. "Able" Company is the generic designated name for the first company in the first battalion of any given regiment during the Second World War. Assuming good faith, I believe the editor has mistaken "Able Company" to be a unique entity and identified it as the 116th Infantry Regiment (United States), with the only "source" being the computer game Company of Heroes, which is loosely based on the 116th Infantry Regiment, among others.
There are precedents for articles for individual companies, the most notable being E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States), which has established notability through a book and television miniseries (Band of Brothers). However, A Company of the 116th Infantry Regiment does not have the same notability, which I believe fails WP:N Mention of A Company's contribution to the Omaha Beach landing is summarised in one sentence at Omaha_Beach#Infantry_landings, outside of which there appears to be no notability.
Should the article not be deleted, it will need to be distinguished from the countless other A Companies. Scottie_theNerd 09:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G11 Pumpmeup 09:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in manual style, more suited for the other wikis which describe how-to processes. It is possible that information of an encyclopaedic nature may be salvaged from this article; the bulk of it, however, should either be deleted or moved. James SugronoContributions 08:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. The actual merge is left as an exercise for the relevant wikiproject and the editors of the target article. GRBerry 14:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like original research to me. Cruftbane 08:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio. J Milburn 10:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is written in current affairs-style writing. Contains original research or unsourced statements. Should be merged or deleted, or moved to Wikinews. James SugronoContributions 07:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete (seems an unlikely search term and information is largely duplicated in The Hardy Boys). Espresso Addict 23:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed with the rationale that "it might be controversial." Not really seeing what could be controversial about an "article" that's nothing but a linkfarm that duplicates the list already found at The Hardy Boys but by all means let's spend five days talking about it. Clear-cut violation of WP:NOT. Otto4711 07:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, criteria G4 as reposted content previously deleted. Sam Blacketer 14:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substantially the same article as from the last (May 2007) deletion discussion. Google is now approaching 1000 hits but still no news hits. Again, no assertion of notability. - Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Waggers 14:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is of a non notable media hosting company. I previously nominated this for speedy deletion but the author removed the db tag from the page. As he or she was making a number of edits and explained the removal of the db tag on my user talk page I decided to leave it for a while to see if verifiable sources emerged. They haven't. The author tries to explain on his user page why the non-notable sources (blogs etc) he has used should be considered notable in this case [User:MenuetRanit], but I'm not convinced. This is a website which hosts media but it is not notable. B1atv 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. At the time of deletion, a badly written WP:OR essay with no sources. Sandstein 21:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references, cannot be verified; dubious. (Disputed prod. Note that it is copied from this at WikiAnswers - but not a copyvio.) -- RHaworth 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G1. Danaman5 08:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete nonsense - creator consistently removes speedy deletion tags Mkativerata 06:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Thea Beckman, with history intact due to the amount of interest in a merge; whether and what to merge is as always an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable book in the Netherlands or anywhere else. The book has not been translated into English, and as far as I know, not in any other language Andries 05:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Consensus is that the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines. Background - On November 15, 1999, Burger King began to sell six different 23-karat collectible gold-plated Pokemon trading cards (Pokémon gold cards) for $1.99, with the purchase of its "value meals." -- Jreferee t/c 07:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Provides virtually no information, does not utilize capitalization, page title should have been "Gold Pokémon cards" (note the accent and the capitalization). I doubt there's anything in here that couldn't be better represented in the article Pokémon Trading Card Game. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Waggers 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Street doesn't pass WP:N, no sources listed. Street is not mentioned in main Podgorica article. Recommending delete, merge redirect at best. Keeper | 76 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cleanup/better sourcing may be required to prevent another renomination. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was considered here and deleted earlier; see link to the right. It was then undeleted at the request of the subject through OTRS. The request of the subject is not binding here, however, and it should be considered again here, not as a BLP concern per se, since apparently the subject is fine with it, but on the merits--notability and sourcing. My concern is that it does not cite reliable sources, but rather blogs and youtube pages. Chick Bowen 04:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as a philosopher. Reference links are all to subject's web sites. Perhaps notable in management - I am not qualified to determine that. 1 insignificant ghit on google scholar. Possible vanity article or article publicising his non-notable personal philosophy of science - a perhaps inappropriate guess based on the editor's knowledge of subjects birth date and nature of articles started by author. Anarchia 03:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and remake into redirect as per Peripitus. DS 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Edmonton River and the National Street Hockey League do not exist. A search upon Google does not bring up any hits aside from the Wikipage for the River. A search into the User's contributions revealed the National Street Hockey League's Wikipage was deleted. Shootmaster 44 03:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Will make it a redirect to Shenlong an existing article that some meat on it. Carlossuarez46 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete declined speedy request based on WP:CSD#A7 - lack of assertion of importance - some think that dragons are not covered by that, but if this myth is notable, some reliable sources should be found, I can't find them. Carlossuarez46 03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted, no prejudice against recreation in quality form (though Industry in Orissa would be a better title). —Verrai 19:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look like an ads with no references Chris! ct 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not notable, no references Chris! ct 02:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable person, no sources, autobiography by user Spanneraol 02:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criteria A7 and as a hoax. Sam Blacketer 12:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cearly a hoax, no sources, and no news of this 'host' on www.lmfm.ie PLAYWERT 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A largely irrelevant page full of fancruft. A lot of it could be considered Original Research (WP:OR) and all in all, I doubt this warrents its own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 12:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game's third studio album. The only new thing this repost has is unsourced guest appearances. Spellcast 00:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, etc. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious hoax, but can't speedy without bowing before the Great God Consensus... — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whatever. you guys are not fun. is it ok if i put "this is not true" at the bottom and then me and my friends can continue to edit it for fun?Allmyjunk444 00:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close as clear bad-faith nomination. The nominator also AfD'd Derek Jeter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derek Jeter, which was speedy kept; as well as vandalized a user page. As a result, the nominator has been blocked indefinitely for being a vandalism-only account. Acalamari 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons. First, it is vulgar and can offend and be inappropriate to view on Wikipedia. Second, its five fucking simple words: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY! --Mellespor 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep as bad faith nomination devoid of any merit. TerriersFan 01:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, just about some overpaid and overrated player, and sorry to be a Red Sox Nation advocate but YANKEES SUCK - EXPECT MORE YANKEE-RELATED AFDS IN THE FUTURE --Mellespor 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Waggers 14:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertation of notability. ¿SFGiДnts! ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 05:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. That the article is in need of cleanup is not a reason to delete it. There are some concerns of this being a POV fork. If these concerns cannot be alleviated it may warrant renomination in the future. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a propaganda of Iran. Even some of the citations are fake and one-sided (mostly Iran sources). The origin of the Azeri Turks is Khazaria. So, it is definitely a POV. To prevent giving false information, I request you to delete this article.Tomyrys 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In its current shape, it is purely selective history writing. All of those sources being brought by Alidoostzadeh are not compared and balanced by other sources, especially Cambrdige History of Iran, Audrey Altstadt and et al. If we could ever reach a compromise to make it a balanced article, I would vote for keeping it. --Aynabend 18:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the articles on subjects which I found to be inherently non-notable while on a look out for biographies of entities over India and specially in the soft-ware development sector. Most of the references quoted on the article are primary sources of information and cannot be deemed as "reliable" and "independent" (as per WP:BIO) since they are owned by the subject of the article themself. (e.g. atulchitnis.net, COMversations) [BIO says: The person must have been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.] Other sources that have a transitional mention of him as a subject seem to be related to the FOSS.in movement based in Bangalore, India (which is itself has not received any significant coverage). [BIO says: That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability. However, the person may be included in the related article. For example Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander]. The BBS documentary source does not fall within the definition of a reliable source as per the guideline page. [From RS: A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.] Neither is it intellectually independent of the subject. The "Livemint" link only talks about his affinity towards "rock music" and does not speak of any of his contribution towards the "open source" or "LINUX" software movement in Bangalore. All the other websites cited without the "ref" tags are not websites of primary information and cannot be termed as independent, reliable secondary sources. Atul Chitnis is neither an academician nor a recognised professional either in India or internationally. AFAIK, the rediff interview link is the only secondary, independent source of information from a reliable source, although which does have a non-trivial coverage, but which cannot be addressed as substantial. The above does not apportion a claim for notability on the subject of the article, since multiple indepedent and secondary sources of information are required. The secondary sources which are linked on the article are only trivial coverage on the subject. This article should be redirected and merged with FOSS. It appears that the subject of the article also has an active interest with his own article, from which it seems that Wikipedia is used as a vehicle for self-promotion. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: From Wikipedia:Notability: Wikinews, not Wikipedia, is better suited to present topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. Thus, this guideline properly considers the long-term written coverage of persons and events. In particular, a short burst of present news coverage about a topic does not necessarily constitute objective evidence of long-term notability.
In particular, we must ask ourselves the question, would this article be of any significance if someone viewed it 10 years later?
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collectino of information (which means that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not just an information resource). Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Wikipedia strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news. Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for Wikinews. -- Zamkudi Dhokla queen! 10:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 15:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very suspect notability (unlike, say, the Imperial March) and most are nothing but minor tracks on the soundtracks Will (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Non-admin closure. Deltopia 22:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio nightmare. Will (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. While the deletion arguments are not very strong, neither are the keep arguments. This article is a good candidate for improvement with more/better sourcing to prevent a future relisting. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A demo disc that was bundled with the GameCube and sold separately for $10.00. Contains four game demos and some videos. It is certainly not an exceptionally notable demo disc, and there is no other demo disc that could even remotely be considered notable enough for their own article, so why is this any different? Because it was advertised? Strong delete. A Link to the Past (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Afd is also for a few other lists very similar to this one, so this is in the same case of the others. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for articles very simialr to this one. This would be the same case. jonathan (talk — contribs) 21:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]