< January 31 | February 2 > |
---|
The result was Speedy delete a7, no valid assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some claim to notability, but it only seems to be local notability. A borderline case maybe. Pollytyred (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No reasons for deletion given. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- bad faith nomination by User:Tinucherian. details are here.
The result was No reasons for deletion given. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 11:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep- bad faith nomination by User:Tinucherian. details are here. --Avinesh Jose T 10:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Kyle Smith (Pro Gamer)===[reply]
User Kairusumisu put up his personal profile and the entry is not worthy of addition
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOWBALL
An indescriminate, POV and unencyclopedic list Pollytyred (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable phrase, fails WP:NOT#DICT. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Redfarmer (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Charlatan. Tikiwont (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. This article was originally a redirect to Charlatan, but it has been recently edited to illustrate "the richness of language," except that there is not much of a distinction between the two terms, nor is there an indication of notability for this term. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; nomination withdrawn.--Kubigula (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article tone and content is largely approbatory (i.e. written as an advertisement). No real claimed notability (possible speedy?) and no significant third party sources (only local office of economic development to support employees – even there, article and source have opposing numbers). Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 23:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Although still slightly approbatory, concerns warranting deletion have been addressed. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep — SpikeToronto (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“It is not famous and it is arguably not important, but I think that no one would serious[ly] question that it is valid material for an encyclopedia. What is it that makes this encyclopedic? It is that it is information which is verifiable and which can be easily presented in an NPOV fashion.” — Jimbo Wales quoted here. [Emphasis added.]
The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 06:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly unnotable genre that relies on a singular source. Very little information has been found on this, and I'm guessing there isn't much information out there Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect to Garage rock. Seems to be a very minor sub genre of it. --neonwhite user page talk 00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay, not an article. Has been tagged for a few months with no real improvement and the tone of the article is overly informal. Looking past all the pop science mumbo jumbo, I'm not seeing anything here worth keeping. JuJube (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD#A7 & WP:SNOW --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Assertion of importance seems to be that they've previously released a non-notable EP and they're "planning" on releasing their debut album in April. Not enough to establish notability in any case. Redfarmer (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad references, probably non-notable, written like a story Lumberjake (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, certainly verifiable [2][3]. But I suggest this isn't really a biography, and should be merged somewhere or deleted. WP:BLP1E applies.--Docg 22:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Based on numerous verifiable and reliable sources as found on Google and noted here especially the Fox News hit [4] and numerous pieces on Google News including international coverage as shown here [5], note the BBC. Shoessss | Chat 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per CSD:A1, CSDA7, .....Keeper | 76 22:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neoglism, fails WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT. Redfarmer (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY CLOSE. Nominator, Lumberjake (talk · contribs) has since been blocked due to sockpuppetry. Other questionable AfDs and removal of numerous PRODs. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 07:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Kill it with fire. Lumberjake (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Law & Order characters. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to confess that I created this one a couple years ago before I understood notability requirements. This was an extremely minor character during the first eight years of Law & Order. Most of his appearances were limited to a single scene with two or three sentences, usually giving information to the main characters. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete - Deleted as WP:CSD#G8 - Nonsense. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable protoglism. Fails WP:NEO. Redfarmer (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable neologisms. Quite possibly original research. A Google search doesn't turn up any reliable sources, but only blogs, forum posts, or self-references to Wikipedia. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. GlassCobra 06:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, from non-notable artist. Album to be released in late 2009, also violated WP:CRYSTAL. Prod removed by author, bringing to AfD per procedure. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist, only had one semi-hit feature single so far (which doesn't even qualify as a "hit," as it only peaked at #41). P.S. Don't believe the rumors linking her to Slick Pulla, either Tom Danson (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedily Deleted as vandalism. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 14:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax, no sources, no Google hits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooble. fschoenm (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is not Hoax, obscure Minister, am currently looking for references —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlow09 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete, that is very strange Dhartung, I am very curious to why he isnt showing up, I will look into it more —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlow09 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of a batch of articles created by a WP:SPA to populate Category:Cuban contemporary artists that they created (the subject of a WP:COI/N that resulted in a bot removing 145 WP:LINKSPAM URLs from the articles ... it lacks any WP:RS attribution to WP:Verify the WP:BIO notability criteria, and a ((Prod))
was declined, so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 20:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced trivia list, probably not even worth merging, but there's an open merge proposal in case anything thinks there's anything to salvage from it Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Non-Admin Closure. Tiddly-Tom 07:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old stub on unsourced non-notable color name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This character is not notable enough to justify his own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinoe (talk • contribs) 2008/01/22 16:08:59
The result was no consensus. Please take possible merge discussions to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character in Danny Phantom, establishes absolutely no out-of-universe notability, has been tagged for all sorts of things since September with no improvement. Seems to be a target for trivia too.
I am also listing the following pages for the same reason:
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
((Simpsons characters))
, ((Family Guy))
, and ((King of the Hill))
, one cannot deny that "main characters" of some shows are worthy of their own articles, and "out of universe notability" is secondary ... as can be seen from ((DPNav))
, most of the other characters are in collected articles, like List of Danny Phantom characters and List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts ... it's individual articles like these that keep articles like List of Simpsons characters, List of Family Guy characters, and List of characters in King of the Hill from getting Too Large, and as USER:DGG pointed out, you'd be hard pressed to get rid of the articles for Waylon Smithers, Neil Goldman, or John Redcorn. —72.75.72.63 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't establish notability in any way; author is a red link. (I can't resist linking to red link.) A search for sources turned up nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough to have it's own article. A merge into Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars would work as well. -Karaku (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. jj137 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article asserts notability and admits that he is prone to small roles. A search is problematic due to a number of men with the same name but there is no evidence that he's notable as defined here. Sole "source" is a photo of his character in a movie Travellingcari (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what the topic actually is, and whether it is notable. JASpencer (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - left as an exercise for the editors if they wish to merge or rename it - Peripitus (Talk) 05:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism articles are POV pushing ground, in this case it's a soapbox for repeating Microsoft ad claims and promote fanboism criticisms. Software is not a piece of art to demand "criticism and praises" sections or separate articles, and this is also not encyclopedic information -- Linux is used by about %1 of the people and it's usually installed for free by people who want to install it, I doubt any kind of criticism of it is of encyclopedic importance -- the jury is still out for criticism of Windows because it's used by over 90% of the people and comes preinstalled on most of the computers, that by itself make is more relevant, yet, I would still suggest deleting such a criticism article about Windows and integrating stuff inside the Windows article. Back to this article, it's clearly a collection of quotes and claims from competitors, this shouldn't be allowed: Wikipedia shouldn't be a soapbox for fanboys or people who have interest to hit competitors' products. This article is of very poor quality too, and because of its POV title it's doomed to remain like this. In addition this article should have been deleted since 2005 per this decision. AdrianTM (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Issaquah School District. The current articles content is a bit like an advert and all unsourced, so I will leave it to other editors to decide if to include any more detail in the district article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to establish notability, is already mentioned here: [[7]], and does not cite any sources whatsoever. DerRichter (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has had reference and OR issues going back several months. I've tried to work on this, but there is very little that can be traced to a reputable source and isn't OR, i.e. which to include, etc. I also think this violates WP:NOT, especially Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Travellingcari (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Merge proposal left to editor discretion. JERRY talk contribs 18:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article feels like borderline spam to me (and I almost speedied it as such). I don't see anything references to make this known as a notable pool complex. It's hard for me to address verifiability since it's Danish and I definitely don't know much beyond English. I was going to suggest a merge to the conference center, DGI-byen, but I'm beginning to wonder if that's worth keeping too (I'll let others decide whether or not that needs to be AFDed as well). Metros (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by an anon (who therefore cannot complete the nomination). On the talk page, the following discussion has been taking place:
This entry was deleted in 2007 after the usual nomination process was followed; as she no longer competes at Bobsleigh there is no logical reason for her to be relisted a year later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.189.254 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She finished 22nd out of 23 teams with her sister; I have searched for some of the athletes who finished ahead of her on wikipedia and they are not listed. Wikipedia is not here to list everyone who ever represented their country as a journeyman or woman. Where is the notability? --213.202.189.254 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware that she had been deleted earlier, but I bypassed this in an effort to avoid a potential issue last October. If you read the WP:BIO rules on the amatuer athletes, she does qualify. Chris (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. No opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the first sentence of the previous comment: the time to set out why she should not be deleted was when her nomination was going through in the normal way in 2007. She was deleted; what issue would have arisen in setting out why she should not have been deleted then. For my ease please set out why you think she qualifies as notable giving regard to the WP:BIO rules on amatuer athletes; I have read them and they do not change my view. By the way my understanding is she was not an amateur athlete as FIBT offer prize money and she was trying to secure sponsors. It is not wikipedia's job to list everyone who ever competed with little distinction at a sport. There is no notability here. She tried to go to the Olympics and was plain not good enough and she came 2nd from last in a FIBT world championship. She was a journeywoman bobsleigher of little distinction. Any 'coolrunnings' type argument that because she was from Ireland she deserves special credit should be set out; as it should be rejected. She is apart from possibly in her home county of Laois unheard of in Ireland.----213.202.138.250 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete-The comment that she meets notability by dint of coming 2nd last in the FIBT championships is facile; once more it has to be restated that it it is not wikipedia's function to list every journeyman or woman bobsleigher/darts player/ tennis player or whatever of little distinction. There has been deletion of bald comments that Hoey participated in athletics- on its own this is and was meaningless. There has also been overstatements and misleading comments posted on the entry which seem to have been posted by those who are trying to keep her on wikipedia come what may. There is the appearance of a vanity entry which is being supported by people who are either overly focused on bobsleigh's place in the grand scheme of things and/or know this lady. I have just gone to the Irish athletics association website and checked their 'all time' list Aoife Hoey's contribution to the world of Irish triple jump is a performance of something like 11.50 metres and she ranks 20th in Ireland on an all time basis. For those of you who do not follow that discipline this is about 4 metres below what world class athletes jump. If she ever did win the national title there it was a case of someone had to; no one else turned up. It is idiotic to suggest that merely winning a national title in a small country like Ireland makes you a lock in to be on wikipedia. Her track and field credits merit no more mention; her bobsleigh standing is little better. She competed for a short time which ended 2 years ago and made up the numbers. This woman along with her sister have been given false credit and promoted to the rank of the 195 other bobsleighers on wikipedia when this group includes all men and women, from all the countries who have performed in this sport over many, many years. The Hoey's short non-career in this sport does not merit this attention. --213.202.138.250 (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- It seems that you possess such a vendetta against both of the Hoey sisters that it makes me wonder if you possess a conflict of interest. Also regarding the Siobhán Hoey article, why do you want to delete an article that was already nominated for deletion, but kept? Why do you want to beat a dead horse on an issue that is being resolved? The more comments you make like this, the more foolish you are beginning to look to other editors of Wikipedia. Think about that. Chris (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC) Comment--That is great shoot the messenger and avoid the message; where is the notability here. Answer the questions posed. Strong opinions are entitled to be expressed in a robust fashion; this lady lacks notability. In regard to an AFD that is not the subject of this page they can be reopened; no one needs your permission.--213.202.176.96 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- let's go back to basics here. the only WP:BIO I can find is as below:
athletes and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).[8]
There is no bald statement that participation in the world championship gets you in. For now lets say she was an amateur: it says that if you compete at the highest level; and meet the general criteria of secondary sources you may be included. In the first place I say that the Olympics is the higest level of participation for a Bobsleigher; I also say that the general criteria of secondary sources have not been met. I also say that if the Wolrd championship is considered and there is nothing in the standard set out above to suggest that should be used the phrase used is 'competed' and not 'particpated'. This lady made up the numbers she was a particpant and not competing at the highest level. In any event if an amateur the highest level is the Olympics. She did not go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.202.176.96 (talk) 10:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The word used in WP:BIO is compete; not particpate. This lady particpated once in the FIBT world championship which is surpassed by the Olympics and came second to last. The comments in WP: BIO also have to be interpreted and applied and in this case they should lead to the conclusion that Hoey should be deleted. --78.16.57.123 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:BIO. Participation in the World Championships is suitable to establish notability, and notability does not depend on results. DanielEng (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:SPA point has been made by the same poster already; there is an argument that has been made on both their respective pages for deleting Hoey and Foley. One poster know seems to want to shoot the messenger/s rather than the message. That does not seem the point. Both athletes seem very marginal candidates for Wikipedia and if you follow through the logic set out here by the same poster who is throwing up the smoke on mirrors- who would you leave off Wikipedia??--83.71.168.81 (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The WP:BIO still applies to this article. Also, I am not shooting the messenger on this issue, but every time an edit is applied to an anonymous IP user, it leaves a mark on edits. These edits can be traced. Chris (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, has not yet played in a professional league Eddie6705 (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find secondary sources establishing the notability of this company (it seems to be a company with a product of the same name) excepting car-related or commercial sites. I nominated the article essentially for other opinions, I'm too unfamiliar with the subject and I don't know if the sources given by google are reliable. I know that we can't compare big and small companies on the same basis, but still, I'm not sure that [8] is satisfied . -- Cenarium (talk) 16:05, 18 and 3:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't find anything in WP:RS to say they're not reliable sources. I tend to imagine that as far as a product goes, retailers would be reliable sources about it's noteworthiness, which, of course is why this article is being Afd'd isn't it? Wikilost (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that no one is interested in this afd, still, I think that the problem of whether retailers are decent sources for an encyclopedic content is relevant. -- Cenarium (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Google turned up no reliable secondary sources devoting significant coverage to this character to indicate notability, which indicates WP:FICT cannot be satisfied no matter what. Doctorfluffy (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as just meeting WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a lawyer that seems to have reliable sources, however, it reads a little bit like a publicity piece. Strictly a procedural nomination; the article was tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable bio. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per sources added to article. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is simply a personal resume of sorts. I have no doubt it was written by a party with a conflict of interest on the matter, and there are only weak and unsourced claims of notability throughout the article based on the companies this person has supposedly been involved with. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as recreated deleted material. east.718 at 22:53, February 1, 2008
So here we are again. After the huge fuss over the last AfD that even led to media coverage of the actual AfD (which I believe was taken down from the newspaper's website), and a deletion debate over the actual AfD itself, and a deletion review that was endorsed, the protection has expired, and a user, in good faith, has created an article about this person again. Apart from having appeared on a few television programmes and supposedly hiring an agent to go into party promoting, what has changed since the last AfD? I don't see that a deletion review has taken place to allow for consensus for a recreation, either (last time the article title was Corey Delaney which now redirects here, as an alternative name). h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. See also the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesame Street closing sequence (also a "delete" decision). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Georgia guy (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak Keep -- Given the history of the show, some of the information is valuable; however, the article is tainted with too much trivial minutae, such as the bit-by-bit styles of the closings and the copyrights. Lots of editing is needed, if kept. -- azumanga (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Teeterville, Ontario. Tikiwont (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of the museums notability. There are some sources, but, one is a museum association and the rest are promotional material. Fails WP:N. Scorpion0422 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Waterford, Ontario. Tikiwont (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No proof of the museums notability. There are some sources, but, one is a museum association and the rest are promotional material. Fails WP:N. Scorpion0422 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable in any way. — TAnthonyTalk 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound notable and Wikipedia is not a memorial Pollytyred (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7. TalkIslander 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable. none of the bands listed have articles, and now he is a librarian (which I respect, but is not notable). Kingturtle (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like more of a newspaper story than an encylopedia article. Pollytyred (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (non-admin closure). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This cites no sources and appears to be somebody's college notes or original research. The material is already covered, in Computer and articles which can be found by following links from there. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments for keeping the article were not compelling, and the article continues to fail WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. The sources provided in the article are either from the subject of the article, or very brief mentions in passing, so they do not qualify as WP:RS. This deletion is not prejudicial, however, so if reliable, independent sources can be found which show notability, the article can be recreated. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a non-notable magazine, has no secondary sources to establish notability. Pollytyred (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Butler Catholic School. Please note, I am abstaining from opinion on the notability of Butler Catholic School. We don't need to articles that say essentially the same thing however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Average Catholic middle school, nothing to demonstrate notability, and middle schools are not inherently notable Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Nothing notable. No sources or references. Delete Undeath (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable, no sources two links to club sites. Nate1481( t/c) 16:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; Copyvio. The primary editor admitted copying this and that it's copyrighted by someone else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, unsourced claims are HUGE (oldest chines MA) but the links are all primary so no help there. Plus it's not clear if it's about the art the school or what, ignoring the state of the article (which is a big ask) the claims and tone are unencyclopaedic and from the copyright tag @ the bottom seems like it is a copy an paste job. Nate1481( t/c) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ORG. No links at all, not even a home page. Plus, it even asserts non-notability in saying "mainly doing small things like litter pick up". Delete Undeath (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A copy-past article on a music director from this link [14]. Creator is probably Kapileshwar himself at least he has taken this name as userid. Many unreferenced claims are included in the article though It is debatable that whether those awards can pass him at WP:MUSIC or not. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have a nasty, judgemental reaction every time I read an article that uses the word 'upcoming' in the first sentence. So I've waited a while and come back to the article again and still believe it fails WP:BIO: even if referenced, I don't believe the claims made amount to sufficient notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked very hard for evidence of notability, but there's none at all. None of the awards seem particularly notable, either; the album has received little or no attention in the press; and the text appears lifted from his personal website. Relata refero (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep due to meeting WP:MUSIC requirement of "has had a charted hit on any national music chart." ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Top peak was somewhere in the 70s with no sources to prove that. Non notable what-so-ever. Undeath (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD: Italian 17-year old player recently signed by Newcastle who clearly fails WP:BIO (no professional first team appearances). Business as usual, I'd say. Angelo (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, possible WP:POINT too; no real reason for deletion given. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Antony Garrett Lisi is not a legitimate physicist. He is not employed by any reputable research institution and does not publish in peer-reviewed journals of any kind. His work is of no consequence to the progress of physics other than as an annoyance. He does not meet the criteria for notability by any stretch of the imagination. Authoritative information source (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as meeting WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. Note that the mere fact of a song's existence is not a reason to have an article. This article was kept because there has been significant coverage in reliable sources about it being leaked. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as he has received media coverage not directly related to the iPhone hacking (e.g., his science project, what he's doing with his life now). WP:BLP1E does not apply because of that additional coverage. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the George Hotz article should be deleted because the subject is not notable enough per WP:BIO guidelines.
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field
His unlocking the iPhone was received media coverage because of the iPhone's widespread popularity. However, this does not mean he is notable enough to be "part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." If this passes the bar for inclusion into the Wikipedia, then what about all the other hackers out there who cracked Windows, the Wii, or any other widely-used consumer product? (Sure, some of these people may wish to remain anonymous, but that's beyond the point.)
Hotz has very little claim to fame besides the iPhone. His award at an Intel competition geared towards high school students is not notable enough.
My two cents. Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus due to plethora of possible SPA opinions expressed here. Please take merge discussions to appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles created against WP:NOR policy and may be re-directed (or have a brief mention about it) to Nair or Caste system in Kerala (in list-wise order, if references established). Another two more editors have also raised concern about whether to keep this or not. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose T 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because [as mentioned above]:
Avinesh Jose T 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. ^ Bombay (India : Presidency) (1883). Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency. Govt. Central Press, 195. Retrieved on 2007-12-18. 2. ^ C. J. Fuller, The Internal Structure of the Nayar Caste, Journal of Anthropological Research (1975), p. 285. 3. ^ A general collection of ... voyages and travels, digested by J. Pinkerton - Page 736 4. ^ Kareem, C.K. (1973). Kerala under Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan. Paico publishing house, 136,137. Retrieved on 2007-12-18.
1. Fawcett. F Nairs of Malabar. Asian Educational Services, NewDelhi. 1990. 2. Miller, Eric J. 1954. Caste and Territory in Malabar. American Anthropologists 56(3):410-420. 3. Miller, Eric J. 1955. Village Structure in North Kerala. In M.N. Srinivas ed. India’s Village. Bombay: Media Promoters & Publishers. 4. Gough, Kathleen 1955a. Female Initiation Rites on the Malabar Coast. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 85(1/2): 45-80. 5. Makkam: The Story of the "Canonization" of a Nayar Woman A. Aiyappan Folklore, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Jun., 1934), pp. 164-169
Even the Kaimal, a stub article, has a credible reference. Articles such as Panikkar, Nambiar, Karnavar, cannot be merged into a single article such as Nair, because they are too long and also because it relates to other communities such as Ezhava, Ambalavasi, Brahmin as well. The above articles should exist for the same reason that there are articles on Kerala, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, etc. which haven't all been merged with the India article. For the above mentioned stub articles, they should be made larger by valuable contributions. As far as I know it is not Wikipedia policy to cut down stub articles instead of making them better.Jammedfly (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tinucherian (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Jimmy Wales quote about being against misleading or false information relevant to these Nair subcaste articles Mr Jose?. Like of I said before among 4 million Nairs these sub-castes, some of whom are/have been endogamous, have significant amounts of people belonging to them. I would support having a list of Nair sub-caste page for the smaller Nair sub-caste articles with no references such as the list of Simpsons characters article, like Manu proposes. I sincerely hope being clueless about Nair communities and Malabar (I assume based on your decision to put up Achayan for deletion) does not cloud your views in decision making Mr Jose.Nambiar (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category "Category:Plants poisonous to equines" was recently deleted; this seems a far more appropriate place to put these, rather than a list which has to be linked in the "see also" of each page, even though it is not related to them, and maintained separately. Verisimilus T 17:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (even discounting all the WP:SPAs coming out of the woodwork on this one). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEEEEEEEEEEP ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.204.30 (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore failing WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:20, 9 February 2008 (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)) . |
Qualify as WP:OR and Wikipedia is not a Genealogical entry directory. Thanks. Avinesh Jose T 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because [as mentioned above]:
Tinucherian (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I belive the notability / verfibility and importance of the article on Pakalomattom family is proved by the below details given.
Some of the Notable Pakalomattom family members in Wikipedia
References to Pakalomattom family are made in many other Wikipedia articles.
A few of them are :-
Internet References : Searching the Internet you will find thousands of articles relating to Pakalomattom / Pakalomattam family.Some of them are
Note : References of books can also be given upon request or if needed.
Tinucherian (talk) 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(removed bad faith personal attack, which has no place in an afd discussion) - Wikidemo (talk) 10:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my request to keep my two articles Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil on Wikipedia .
A simple search on wikipedia itself will refer to the importance of these articles
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=pakalomattom&fulltext=Search]
This will help you understand the highly notability of Pakalomatton family members in India.
A search of Pakalomattom on Google gave a whooping 1680 results !!!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS225IN230&q=pakalomattom+&btnG=Search
Hope i have proved my point !!!
Tinucherian (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply A quality of a good internet user is the ability to identify and narrow down to what is a good and relavant search engine result. Trying to search my surname cherian gave 320,000 results. that doesnt mean cherian is unique to cherian i am looking to search. Try search for napoleon bonaparte it gives 382,000 results , but you know there can be only one and only napoleon bonaparte !!!
The same holds for the keyword Pakalomattom !!!
I hereby iterate the fact all the Pakalomattom in wiki all related to same Pakalomattom. Please try do some research before giving any assumptions.
I request you kindly to consult anyone who have expertise in Indian church history to contributions of Pakalomattom / Pakolomattam family.
Tinucherian (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My sincere Apologies if I have/had offended anyone by my remarks. I was carried away by the feelings that the articles I have started , and which i believe is good enough to be in wiki, is being deleted . I request the kind admins and wikipedians to give a reasonable opinion based on the evidences I have put forward here . I will continue to contribute with my humble works in future also to the betterment of Wikipedia.
Tinucherian (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep The content of the 2 articles seems to be encyclopedic in nature and holds good to be on Wikipedia. The history of Pakalomattom familes is well known in and Kerala and india .Tibutibu (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep this site, Pakalomattom familes is well known in and Kerala and india, and also Pakalomattom familes is a strong part of Christian history of Kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasdanielreji (talk • contribs) 10:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — Thomasdanielreji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strongly keep this site. A well known family from Kerala in India that has a prominent part in Christian history of that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.102.0.108 (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.215.169 (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Pakalomattom familes are one of the ancient families of Kerala. Its history and contributions to Indian christianity is well known. Admins should take the help of someone who has expertise in indian christianity before taking any further action. - Ginu George , Kuwait —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.215.169 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — 78.154.215.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strongly keep Pakalomattom Family has a great tradition and grapevine spread all over the World, It has links to many who are emotionally attached to the details provided herin, hence "Strongly Keep" Thomas Philip (Filgy), Bangalore
Strongly keep Pakalomattom is an ancient, kerala-based Christian family with deep-rooted history and tradition and that's what the wiki illustrates. Hence "stronly keep" Ajit Mathew, London —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.246.143 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC) — 86.21.246.143 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strongly keep I would like to put in my two cents and say you'all should keep these articles in the wikipedia.
Samuel (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep. Pakalomattom is a long-established Christian family line in Kerala. The information in this wiki is highly relevant to all those who might want to research Christian families engaged in Church history in Kerala, India. It would be plain wrong to delete such information from Wikipedia. Ravi Arapurakal (Arapurakal), Princeton, NJ USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arapurakal (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC) — Arapurakal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strongly keep I am aganist deletion of these two articles. Admins should revert the changes by Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil by Wikidemo atleast until the review is over, otherwise what is the review without the specimen ?? - Jinu Jacob, Bangalore
Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications. Depending on the specific circumstances, sending a notification to a group of editors by email may be looked at more negatively than sending the same message to the same group of people on their talk pages.
George Cherian. strongly suggest to keep the page. It has been very useful to know the history of Christianity and the ancient families in Kerala. If you delete this page, you are deleting some valueable information on Church History in Kerala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.215.206.16 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Susan: Strongly keep this info as it will be useful for anyone interested in knowing about Chritianity in South India. A good effort has been made to collect and put up this information. Deleting it will be a loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.88.234.45 (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) — 202.88.234.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — 202.88.234.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would request Western readers to kindly keep this in mind as they deal with Oriental people and their systems of knowledge. Oriental societies were mostly - till recently - reliant on oral transmission of knowledge. Those who are educated now along western lines understand the need for citations and sources, etc. Much of our significant history is still unwritten. It was after the arrival of the British in India that our histories began to be written! I remember the words of Robert Eric Frykenberg (Professor Emeritus of History, Univ of Wisconsin) who answered a charge that there are no documented historical evidences to prove that St Thomas came to India. He asked, "Where is the documented historical proof for Peter's arrival in Rome?" (See his book "Christianity in India: Beginnings to the Present") Philip.eapen (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Mar Thoma I was the successor of Archdeacon Geevarghese pakalomattom who was the Archdeacon of Malankara Syrian church during and immediately after the Udaymperoor Synod (1599). (Archdeacon Pakalomattom Thomas)... "
"Mar Thoma IV consecrated a member of the pakalomattom family as Mar ThomaV."
" In India St.Thomas founded the church and appointed prelates to continue apostolic ministry in the church. It is believed that the prelates were appointed from for ancient families namely, Pakalomattom, Sankarapuri, Kalli, and Kaliankal. Gradually the Pakalomattom family gained prominence in the ministry and chief prelates of the community where hailed from that family....In his answer, he said, that from 335 AD for 1308 years ie. Till the coonan cress oath, the church was ruled by the Archdeacons of Pakalomattom family. He also said that after the coming of the Portuguese the church had, besides him six Metrans and one metropolitan."
"169 Ayiroorkuzhiyil Kudumba Charithram Committee 2005"
" Palakkunnathu Abraham MalpanRecognized as the catalyst behind the Reformation, Abraham Malpan was born in 1796 (Malayalam Era 971) in Palakunnathu family which is believed to be a branch of the renowned Pakalomattam family. "
"St. Thomas established seven Christian communities or churches in Kerala. They are in Cranganore, Paravur(Kottakavu), Palayoor, Kokkamangalam, Malayattoor, Niranam, Chayal (Nilackal) and Kollam (Quilon). Throughout Kerala, one can find Christian families that are proud to claim descent from ancestors who were baptized by Apostle Thomas. Sankarapuri, Pakalomattom and Maliekal are the prominent ones. .... "
"St. Thomas established seven Christian communities or churches in Kerala. They are in Cranganore, Paravur (Kottakavu), Palayoor, Kokkamangalam, Malayattoor, Niranam, Chayal (Nilackal) and Kollam (Quilon). Throughout Kerala, one finds Christian families that are proud to claim descent from ancestors the Apostle baptized. Sankarapuri, Pakalomattom and Maliekal are the prominent ones. ..."
"The high caste Brahmin families that adorned Christianity were mainly from Pakalomattom, Shankarapuri, Kalli and Kaliangala families and members from them were ordained as priests or chieftains for the community."
"Kuravilangadu has a unique place in the history of the Church of Malabar. The temporal administration of the church was conducted by Archdeacons who were very influential in the society. It is believed that the Archdeacons have been descended from the Pakalomattam family. The mortal remain of a few Archdeacons are still preserved at the Pakalomattam Chapel. "
Note : Detailed history of the family is said in Pakalomattom and Ayrookuzhiyil family websites mentioned at top of this page...
Tinucherian (talk) 07:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind comments and suggestions. Please note that Ayrookuzhiyil family is a subset (or a branch) of Pakalomattom family. Therefore, there is no question of the former riding piggyback on the latter. Moving this article to the Pakalomattom page may be okay. >> Validation by reliable research is essential. However, most people might agree with me when I say that primary sources of information precede the arrival of secondary and tertiary sources. In a country such as India, much of sociological or historical data is locked up as primary data, untouched by researchers. It is when socially or historically important topics are brought to light that researchers focus their attention on these to dig out and validate claims of truth. India is therefore a very fertile ground for research. Before we relegate to history's waste bin the small clusters of primary data that keep cropping up, let us give researchers a chance.Philip.eapen (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Strongly keep" "very valuable information for the family members and the public." "santhosh" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.73.94 (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC) — 59.88.73.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment As Philip.eapen said , Ayrookuzhiyil is a subset of the great Pakalomattom Family , of which the former started as a seperate stream in 17th century (1684 AD).
We Indians, mostly are reliant on oral transmission of knowledge. Please note that the much of early history of india was recorded by World travellers than Indian historians themselves. The great epic of Ramayana was transferred orally for hundreds of generations.
The history of Ayrookuzhiyil and its connection to the greater family of Pakalomattom is well known in this part of the world. Efforts of recording family history in Kerala began only in this century. It should be noted that almost last 10 generations of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil family is now recored to books. Infact hand written manuscripts and recordings began in early part of this century by forefathers and it has become sources of information for the present book publications and websites.
The recent steps of history recordings are :
1) Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil Kudumbacharitram Part I ( 2001) : Edited by Dr. Koshy Abraham .
2) Ayiroorkuzhiyil Kudumba Charithram , Kudumba Charithram Committee (2005) . This is archived in Kerala Council for Historical Research [KCHR] (It is an autonomous institution committed to scientific research in history and social sciences. Funded by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of Kerala ) Ref : http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/family.htm , see Book No 169.
3)Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil website http://www.ayrookuzhiyil.org/]
Please also Note Ayrookuzhiyil is also written as Ayiroorkuzhiyil , Ayrurkuzhiyil , Ayrookuzhi, Ayrukuzhy , Ayrookuzhy, Ayrukuzhiyil , Ayroorkuzhiel etc. This happens when names of Non-english names are translated by generations. Pakalomattom itself is written as Pakalomattom , Pakalomattam , Pakalomattathil etc.
I am still OK with merging of Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil sub-family article to the main artcile of Pakalomattom , but independent research and udpation will also be allowed if there are two artciles. Soon articles of importance of other sub-families of Pakalomattom will come to Wiki in future , hence it is advisable to keep this as two artciles to avoid clutter. Otherwise , there is No need of seperate articles for India and states of india like Kerala , Karnataka etc.
Please also note the history of Pakalomattom is more than 2000 years old and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil is around 350 years old starting from Idicula Tharakan , the Doyen of the Ayrookuzhiyil Family .
Tinucherian (talk) 03:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admins : There was a sudden deletion of Pakalomattom from many Wiki articles !! Especially when these artciles are given as tangible evidences to this AFD.
I dont want to comment who is behind this and its intention.
Another noticable recent activity is
There was a merger proposal on one of my articles Coonen_Cross_Oath to Coonan_Cross_Oath. User:Avineshjose added [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonen_Cross_Oath&diff=189430273&oldid=189316856]
With just one proposal by a user , See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coonen_Cross_Oath&action=history, User:Avineshjose just deleted the article [[Coonen_Cross_Oath and redirected to Coonan_Cross_Oath ! Admins, please note the activities. I dont want to comment further on this
Tinucherian (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tinucherian (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this article can survive in its current form. It is not a suitable topic given the very limited references. Wikipedia is not a genealogy. The Syriac Christians of India certainly are notable enough to be covered in Wikipedia, but a profusion of articles on individual families is not the way to go. The work by Koshy Abraham which is cited looks to be an unpublished work of genealogy. We went through some similar issues with the deletion debates about the Arbuthnot family a few months ago. The use of a work of genealogy was strongly criticized in that case, even though it was a published book that was found in libraries and was available online. (Just one of the many Arbuthnot discussions is in the archive of WP:COIN). EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The question of this discussion is the need of deletion / retaining of 2 articles by the Nominator User:Avineshjose :- Pakalomattom and Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil . The notability of Pakalomattom is confirmed by the nominator himself to an extent. See above : The Syrian Christian community in Kerala has a major role in the socio-economic ladder in Kerala, especially in education and health sector. Pakalomattam family is also quite prominent in Kottayam district of Kerala. Here we are taking about a family that is unquestionably has a history of over 2000 years and a sub-family of this which started to flow as a seperate stream since 3-4 centuries ago. Like many others said in this discussion , there is a lot of difference between histrory recordings between the West and Eastern part of the world. Here we are used to oral transmission of knowledge and histroy over generations. Recordings of family histories were started only very recently - may be 2 centuries ago max. The Pakalomattom Ayrookuzhiyil History by Dr.Koshy is available is a published book and available even in libraries. Please note that Dr. Koshy is famous church and family historian with many books to his credit. The second book on Ayrookuzhiyil sub- family is Ayiroorkuzhiyil Kudumba Charithram , Kudumba Charithram Committee (2005) . This is archived in Kerala Council for Historical Research (KCHR) (It is an autonomous institution committed to scientific research in history and social sciences. Funded by the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Government of Kerala, India ) Ref : http://www.keralahistory.ac.in/family.htm , see Book No 169.
I am requesting more authentic comments from Wikiadmins from this part of the world as they have more knowledge about the history here.
((helpme))
- Tinucherian (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. No hint in google search. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as meeting WP:MUSIC (charted). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep due to meeting WP:MUSIC requirement of "has had a charted hit on any national music chart." ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. Top peak was somewhere in the 70s with no sources to prove that. Non notable what-so-ever. Undeath (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N and WP:BIO. A google search shows that he acted in one single movie[17]. IMDB shows that he acted in a supporting or minor role[18]. Based on all those issues, nominating this article for deletion. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as unsourced. There is no agreement on whether the subject meets the "major radio station" criterion of WP:MUSIC, but there is also no counterevidence against the claim that the article cannot be sourced from independent sources, and thus the article fails WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable internet-only DJ. Precious Roy (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spar has taught at harvard for twenty years. Her book The Baby Business was not only reviewed, it was discussed in feature articles in the New York Times and other general circulation periodicals. Now she has been named President of one of America's leading liberal arts colleges.
the articles is sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Clio (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable content (biography of a footballer). He is notable enough to have a WP article as per it claims, but the question is verifiability. Google search failed to provide any information regarding this person. Serbian Wikipedian may have a close look here. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It fails at WP:N and also WP:ORG (If a club is considered as an organization). It seems to be a vanity article that fails to pass notability on WP. A Google search returns nothing. Note that there is a reputed bike producing company with the name but this article in noway is related to that one. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 15:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per author request by blanking the page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not satisfy the notability guidelines. he is the CEO of a small firm, which in turn is owned by a larger firm, and a video game designer. This entry could be merged into Surreal Software. Greswik (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day sums it up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. No sources to back up claims. Google searches yield no notable information. Undeath (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion was declined, this reads like a cut and paste from a Government website. It doesn't seem like an encylopedia article. Pollytyred (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted by SGGH (G11). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there's coverage of this guide, however I don't see how this is encyclopedic and/or not a violation of WP:SPAM Travellingcari (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article history makes it evident that this is an autobiography. Since notability is unclear, deletion must be considered. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a gameplay element that does not have real world information to establish notability. The specifics are covered within the various articles, and there is no current assertion for improvement. For two relevant Afds on two other gameplay elements of the series, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arwing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Fox. TTN (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a two-year recreation of an unsourced bio of a non-notable musician/Dj/dancer. It is the same mess now that it was when it was created the last time. When I tried to speedy it, I was told that since it was two years old, I must take it to AfD. Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Hoax or not, speedily deleted due to no claim of notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be a hoax. No refs, no ghits. There is an "Official website", but I mean look at it. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 15:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Although there aren't many !votes here, the article's subject has not been a participant in the highest level of his/her sport and has only played at an amateur level. See this guideline. I agree that this is an A7 candidate,meaning deletion is the expected result. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a college football player, who, in his four year career as a walk-on at Miami, did not see the field a single time. The only sources given are his official Miami bio and his personal website. Originally, it was deleted as an uncontested prod, but the author recreated it, so I'm bringing it here. This topic obviously does not meet WP:BIO. B (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No reliable evidence that such a subgenre actually exists. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a neologism, or at best some sort of original research; none of the cite sources even includes the term "weedpunk". This may make an interesting essay on punk subcultures, but I see no evidence that it belongs in wikipedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(indent)With all due respect and good faith, looking at your contribs to that article, you made exactly one edit, removing one sentence. I'd hardly call that "building it up". Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it fails WP:N at first glance it looks impressive. But when you actually look at it says, he had a job or two then got a political appointment to be chairman of an organization New York State Office Of Science, Technology and Academic Research Jeepday (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:BK. I can find no secondary sources about this that are non-trivial by googling for author's name and the novel's title, just a few directory-style entries. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, misguided nomination by myself having seen a revert to vandalised edit. Solumeiras (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, and violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If he is notable in the future this can be re-created. Solumeiras (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:N. Non-notable TV show. A Google search returns nothing, thus its verifiability is also questionable. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Rudget. 17:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails at both the core policies - WP:N and WP:V. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 12:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Please take possible merger discussions to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction fanclub of questionable notability. No independent (at least English language) sources given.-- Dougie WII (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as basic notability seems to have been established through verifiable reliable sources. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:35, 9 February 2008 (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)) . |
This is an article on a MySpace group that happened to be deleted after a minor incident that got equally minor news coverage. It's unlikely the group meets WP:WEB or WP:ORG; one of the sources is a short news story related to the aforementioned incident, another is a passing mention, and a third isn't entirely independent. Coredesat 12:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, this seems like a historical event about which people would like to remember the details as accurately as possible. This event is outlined here: http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
If this is a case of bigotry, and most people agree bigotry is bad, then most people should want this to remain documented and open for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspirin99 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you are right about it needing more links. I'm still sort of new to editing wiki pages. I don't think this article meets deletion criteria because there is nothing fake/spam/garage-band/new terms/etc about it. The only thing in question is it's notability. I'm still in process but there are a ton of various news outlets reporting on the group, to meet one notability criteria. It also meets the criteria "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.". That would be Harvard. How do I vote to keep this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.107.206 (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think as an example of the ongoing oppression of Atheism and Atheistic ideas, this article has merit. Perhaps editing to expand its scope and provide a broader context is in order. I don't believe it warrants deletion, however, for what it's worth. To be truly objective, though, there should at least be an attempt to provide MySpace.com's side of the group deletion. Even if they say nothing at all, there should be mention of an attempt to contact them. Sabin Densmore —Preceding comment was added at 14:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lets see, the article exists for almost a year, and as soon as some major public controversy starts to erupt over the group in public newspapers and popular internet blogs with large readerships, suddenly a few people get a bee up their bum to delete the article. Somehow it's hard to see this deletion nomination as only a normal run-of-the-mill wikipedia junk cleanup. It's obvious that many many people have taken notice in the public arena, way beyond the fact that the group already has 34,000 members which alone has meaning. "It's just myspace" comments show ignorance and bias. This article is and has been used as informative reference, although it needs work. It is not doing any harm, only good on wikipedia. Writing an article about my poo for the day is not notable. This group very much is. I don't get the controversy over the number of sources, is there doubt that the group exists? All this crying to get it removed just sounds plain biased after the facts.````Hox memplex
((notable))
).And some more articles in the press[25][26][27]... // Liftarn (talk)
The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hearby nomiate Skyline Builders atleast due to the following reasons
Tinucherian (talk · contribs) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, possibly a WP:POINT too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hearby nominate Caritas Hospital atleast due to the following reasons
Tinucherian (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speediliy deleted as vandalism Dlohcierekim Deleted?
Probably hoax, no sources given fschoenm (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my account is not a SPA, these are just my first arcticles of many more to come —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPlow09 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to lack of references and persistance vandalism on the site I have decided to remove both sites.
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have been created for the sole purpose of providing a directory of YouTube links. Not only is WP:NOT a web directory, but all the remaining information in this list is unsourced. The Anome (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Non-admin closure --Lenticel (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The links don't lead anywhere, and there is no such book on Amazon. Pretty sure this is a hoax. Even if it should prove not to be, there are issues with copyvio and notability. Also nominating author biography, and any other related pages. Lampman (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 (recreation of an article previously deleted via an AfD). --Angelo (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page was re-created after being deleted as it was non-notable, Sodje has never appeared in a fully pro league. Previous AfD is here Jimbo[online] 11:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Malinaccier (CSD G1: Patent nonsense). Non-admin closure. shoy 14:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a nonnotable neologism PROD was removed by an anon without explanation. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like something your real estate agent would hand out. No sources, no verification, just a sales term and not a very notable one at that. Thinly veiled advertising, though not for a specific product or firm. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt such video gamers are notable... dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was} delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contested prod; a tv series producer so nn that it has no sources, no significant coverage in RSes, as required for WP:N and WP:BIO, and has the redflags of non-notability as we don't know when or where he was born or even whether he's still alive. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish TV channel, not notible in english Wikipedia RT | Talk 21:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I should note that the discussion at ArbCom does not cover this article as that discussion only applies to television characters per this clarification by Newyorkbrad. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a plot repetition of a few incidents from the three Shrek movies, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. This is after discounting all the ILKIEIT, OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and similar arguments made by the SoB supporters. Wading through all the SoBs' comments was great fun. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:12, 9 February 2008 (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)) . |
Request for deletion as subject lacks WP:NOT Mikerichi (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete fan teams are NN. Peanut4 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! Why are we even having this discussion? I heard about SoB in an article, and Wikipedia was the first place I turned to find out more. Shall I stop thinking of Wikipedia as an information source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.137.71 (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The Sons of Ben have done a lot to show that Philadelphia is ready and waiting for an MLS frabchise. What other city would do this. Just because the city doesn't have a team doesn't mean it can't have a supporters club. Once it does, it will already have a solid fanbase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.250.184.246 (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no decision per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Feel free to nominate again after the ArbCom decision is finally made. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. They were important characters during the show's second season and the article may need some explain expansion, but there's no reason to delete it.LoveLaced (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear notability, no independent sources. The article on the Swedish Wikipedia has been deleted as "PR article for an unknown author whose only book has been published by a print on demand publishing house".
I am also nominating the article about his book for deletion (this one, too, has been deleted on the Swedish Wikipedia):
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This footballer has never played at a fully professional level therefore he does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated and kept without a lot of discussion, this article still doesn't demonstrate any independent notability for Freda. Very few sources are about Freda himself rather than merely quoting the fact that he's leader of this organisation (which, incidentally, doesn't appear massively notable itself; I was surprised to only find 95 unique GHits, and most of those mirrors or blogs). I boldly redirected the article to the organization's, and was reverted, so bringing here. Black Kite 07:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no source given and no proof can be found that this person actually existed (Hockeydb.com has none) Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep based on discussion. Wizardman 14:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a character page with no assertion of real world information or notability. This also cites NO SOURCES. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Any further renaming or merging discussions should be held at the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, spam and copyvio. Pegasus «C¦T» 04:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no references since July 2007, COI - author appears to be the subject. Is he more famous in Ireland than Google can show? Yamara ✉ 06:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fire brigade. Jmlk17 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance mitrebox (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance mitrebox (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible CW issues mitrebox (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced. Dubious mitrebox (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
references added--Bgonch (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete non-admin closure--Lenticel (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no page here mitrebox (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge a brief discussion of the book in the bio of Doug Owram. JERRY talk contribs 23:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30 year old textbook of dubious nature. Work was a publication of a doctoral student. WP is not self promotion. mitrebox (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Promise of Eden is actually considered one of the definitive books on the Canadian expansionist movement, and set the tone for decades of research in the field. Doug Owram, although a doctoral student when writing the book, went on to a significant career as a historian at the University of Alberta. I am unsure where the notion of 'self-promotion' was evident in the article. I feel the article, although obvioulsy in its early stages, should not be deleted. Wheateater (talk) 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30 year old textbook of dubious nature
The work of a doctoral student
WP is not self-promotion
198.166.246.37 (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all as defunct. Neıl ☎ 15:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Attempt to coordinate current events in Hong Kong in the main article namespace. The last non-vandlism/reversion edit was made on November 9, and the function of keeping tabs on recent news seems to have been superceded by Portal:Hong Kong. As such, I am nominating the page to eliminate redundency and per WP:NOT#NEWS. jonny-mt 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - apparently there's more. Lots more. I'm bundling all of these together.
--jonny-mt 05:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was trolling.. - auburnpilot talk 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of plot summaries. Another issue is notability--Makesbasis (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to HP Photosmart. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is an non notable type of digital camera Marlith (Talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to HP Photosmart. Someone should have been WP:BOLD and just done that rather than bring it here. Merge discussions do not need to go through AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is an non notable line of digital cameras. Marlith (Talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete - WP:CSD#G10 Attack page. Mattinbgn\talk 07:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally flagged as a hoax, because a Google search for the subject plus unique terms from the article produces no results. The author has since provided a single reference that identifies the subject by name, so it appears now to be a real person. Based on that, the page could be an attack page and possibly speedied. User also admitted to me in an email that he has no verifiable, third-party sources to back up his claims, meaning it's also entirely original research. Significant WP:BLP concerns also make me believe this should simply be speedied. Gromlakh (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: It does not appear that this is related to the Scott Atkins who was previously deleted in another AfD. Gromlakh (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of passing WP:MUSIC. Google returns few hits which mainly appear to be unrelated. No reliable secondary sources mention this musician or his music. The only assertion of notability in the article is the single "Peace", yet I can find no evidence of its existence. There appear to be two minor, local bands which have a member named Liam Griffiths, but I can't tell if either is the subject of the article since there are no corroborating sources. In fact, he listed as a bassist in one and a drummer in the other, yet this article is about a singer named Liam Griffiths. Regardless, both of the bands appear to completely non-notable themselves being typical highschool Myspace bands. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper. Wails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Poeloq (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crackaveli--4.153.239.71 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of a batch of articles created by a WP:SPA to populate Category:Cuban contemporary artists that they created (the subject of a WP:COI/N that resulted in a bot removing 145 WP:LINKSPAM URLs from the articles ... it lacks any WP:RS attribution to WP:Verify the WP:BIO notability criteria ... an expired, seconded PROD was declined by Some Other Editor so I have opened this AfD. —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk · contribs) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kurykh 00:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod. Original research essay for a non-notable term from the Bioncle universe. Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:COI.Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to BookCrossing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself no longer exists. When removing no longer useful information, such as the FAQ, it's reduced down to a small blurb which was easily added to BookCrossing, where it naturally fit. I was the one who'd tagged it for merger but then realised it was just simpler to add a few lines. Travellingcari (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio, redirect set per User:Paularblaster. Pegasus «C¦T» 22:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. Hardly any information given. The sites are weak and simple searches yield nothing notable. Metal Head (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion contested by article creator. This article is about an admittedly unpublished novel, and the article was apparently created by the author of the novel. No independent sources are provided and it is unlikely that any exist. A Google search finds no hits outside Wikipedia. The novel does not meet any criteria for notability at WP:BK and so I recommend it be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to HP Photosmart. Someone should have been WP:BOLD and just done that rather than bring it here. Merge discussions do not need to go through AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this is an non notable product. Marlith (Talk) 03:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Note: I have restored the previous AfD that was overwritten by this one, and renamed this one. No further cleanup of the overwrite is necessary. JERRY talk contribs 23:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of problems with this article. It has existed since May 2005 and still does not have a single reliable third-party source. It's been tagged as needing additional citations for nearly one full year.
I did a couple of searches to see if I could find any material to improve the article. However, results were not promising. Google Books found only one relevant work, plus one or two passing mentions and one book whose content is marked as restricted. A regular Google search shows lots of hits, but I didn't see a single one that I would consider to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. Google Scholar has one single mention that simply says it was one of the most popular Usenet groups (a second hit is from a 1955 article and obviously an inaccurate match). JSTOR does not have any matches. I don't think there is enough material here or anywhere else to meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability while avoiding original research.
There's another major problem with the article as it now stands, namely WP:BLP. The article repeats mentions of the "awards" various individuals have won. Only primary sources are cited for these award assertions; a few "winners" are mentioned in the book I cited above, but, by and large, they aren't the same ones currently listed on the page. The page as it stands basically repeats non-notable Usenet smears against living people. *** Crotalus *** 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to track bicycle. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At best a neologism. Gets 25 google hits only, many of which are for the mis-spelling of track, which seems nothing less than incredible for a concept supposedly "formed as a collaboration between ... members of national and regional cycling-related internet forums." As such, not notable. Tagishsimon (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to San Pablo City, and all relevant information can be merged. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 02:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 02:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(No-)Contested prod. This is a spin-off of an apparently not notable homebrew device. If the main article is not notable, why should its companion compatibility list be any more notable? Probably should have been speedied when the main article was deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stay with me on this one, the reason I nominated this is a bit different then most. For one, this article does read like an advertisement, as it has since it was tagged. It also fails WP:ORG. Also, look at its talk page, this article was a scam. I believe this article is not salvageable. The source that describes the male to female ratio does not make the article notable either. I say delete this article. Undeath (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 14:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created a whole year ago, but it's always lacked sources for notability. Nguyen has been saying that she planned to release her debut album since 2004. However, she never made any official announcements about it, nor did any news outlets. So this is a form of crystal balling. Lady Galaxy 02:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, nom withdrawn (non-admin closure). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: :Amélie Louise Rives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete article in no way asserts notability for this non notable person. per WP:N Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Withdrawn, sorry didn't know it was hidden oO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Jmlk17 under WP:CSD#A1 -- pb30<talk> 03:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WAY to short, just one sentence saying that Kaesha is a female name that is not used very often. Unencyclopedic. J.delanoygabsadds 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable person and possible/probably hoax considering its creator was a person doing rapid vandalism earlier today before being indef blocked. Googled to try to verify any correctness in the information, but found only 9 results with conflicting information and none providing stand alone notability. Sent to speedy but that was declined. Collectonian (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NEO UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article because there is a potential to greatly expand the article using the sources which I cited, but by someone else besides me because I am not a traffic engineer. This is a similar situation to another article I created, where I also created a seed sentence with minimal content intended for expansion (First version). I specifically listed a stub line on the bottom of the Channelization (roads) article in order to attract other editors to it to expand it. Mapsax (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, non notable "cocktail". Wikipedia is not a recipe book. John (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable game. Lacks sources for notability. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent notability on its on - merge MIGHT be in order, but I submit that a AfD is in order. Wisdom89 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a collection of articles beginning with "Welcome to"... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time we AFD'd this article, we had no consensus, but still - same issues: I still fail to see notability here, still no reliable sources, and the page is a mess to begin with. ViperSnake151 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
krizaI did alot of the editting to this page and I am still new to the Wiki-world so doing sourcing for this is still a little bit of a mystery. I do know that SELF has been referenced in several larger papers and most of the Gay Press has mentioned the event in the past. if ViperSnake151 has a model of a clean site I will model it off of that. —Preceding comment was added at 23:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If and when the movies is released and some coverage actually exists, the page can always be recreated then. Neıl ☎ 14:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted. (Vanity alert: main contributor is a single-purpose account run by an actor who appears in the film.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough information provided in the links column to establish it as a real film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Collegebound8605 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vanity project. It is a low-budget horror film with horror scream queen Suzi Lorraine being released my a major distributor of horror films. There are articles, websites, and amazon links towards the film. I think its nitpicking b/c I am the only contributor to the site. Once the film is released, it will have major coverage on horror film websites. It has also been listed on the fangoria website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.121.158 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so what if it stays up until it is released so that reviews can be added to the site? i mean its credible but all i seem to get is backlash from you all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.121.158 (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not well known in mainstream cinema but Suzi Lorraine is a major horror queen here are her roles:
- Episode #1.13146 (2007) TV episode .... Waitress - Episode #1.13145 (2007) TV episode .... Waitress
- Just Another Pretty Face (2006) TV episode .... Model
... aka Lord of the Strings (USA: R-rated version)
... aka Misty Mundae: School for Lust (UK) ... aka Satan's School for Sluts (USA)
... aka B-Movie (USA: short title)
The director is also a cult horror film director who wears many hats on his productions:
Composer:
* 2000s * 1990s 1. Torment (2008) (V) 2. Wolfika (2006) (V) 3. Malefic (2003) (V) 4. Abomination: The Evilmaker II (2003) (V) ... aka Abomination (USA) 5. Dead Clowns (2003) 6. Psycho Santa (2003) (V) 7. Cremains (2001) (V) 8. Gut-Pile (1997)
Director:
1. Torment (2008) (V) 2. Southern Gothic (2005) 3. Malefic (2003) (V) 4. Cadaver Bay (2003) (V) ... aka Hellbound: Book of the Dead (USA) 5. Dead Clowns (2003) 6. Cremains (2001) (V)
Writer:
1. Torment (2008) (V) (writer) 2. Southern Gothic (2005) (writer) 3. Malefic (2003) (V) (writer) 4. Cadaver Bay (2003) (V) (writer) ... aka Hellbound: Book of the Dead (USA) 5. Dead Clowns (2003) (writer) 6. Cremains (2001) (V) (writer)
Actor:
1. Diary of Nightmares (2006) (V) .... Brendon 2. Wolfika (2006) (V) .... Coroner 3. Malefic (2003) (V) .... Elliot Spudic 4. Psycho Santa (2003) (V) .... Detective
Editor:
1. Torment (2008) (V) 2. Diary of Nightmares (2006) (V) 3. Wolfika (2006) (V)
Cinematographer:
1. Wolfika (2006) (V)
Casting Director:
1. Wolfika (2006) (V)
Music Department:
1. Killers by Nature (2005) (V) (composer: additional music) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.121.158 (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFF, not going into production until March at the earliest. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedily deleted by ArnoldReinhold upon creator's request. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improper disambiguation page. Dictionary definition plus subject already served by category "Glass makers and brands." Dougie WII (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the big game coming up this Sunday, I just feel that the vast volume of traffic on this page will probably cause grim problems with Wikipedia. The game should be a time to rejoice, savor your eyes, and keep your asses in a life rather than sit at a computer, watch the score updates, and keeping updating this page like a lifeless nerd turd. Plus this game is way more hyped than it should be, and just a few hours of football probably doesn't deserve its own article on Wikipedia. Nothing personal Roger Goodell, but space on Wikipedia is at a premium, and we must save it. --Brokendownferrarienzoferrari (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]