The result was No consensus to delete. While that means this defaults to keep, I'd point out that the general consensus within the debate below indicates that a merge would be suitable. The central argument that many agree with is that these articles are not encyclopedic, nor are they meeting our standards. The dispute is over how to fix that issue, and I think the consensus within this debate is that editorial clean-up is the preferred option. To turn a metaphor, people would rather prune the unwieldy tree than chop it down, since the tree itself seems to have value. I'd suggest good faith efforts are made to clean these articles up, work out which ones need merging, establish whatever redirects are needed, and then anything superfluous be brought back to the appropriate deletion venue. I think all parties should allow a reasonable period of time to get that work done, and I'd advise against a group listing of this set of articles in the future. So while this has defaulted to keep, no-one should walk away under the illusion that the status quo is acceptable; that would be a severe misreading of the consensus below. Hiding T 10:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a fictional vehicle from a cartoon series and fails WP:NOT and WP:NOTE. Basically a plot summary with no indication of having received additional coverage through reliable sources.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
These are all about fictional planets, locations and plants from the same series. Sloane (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have reduced SDF-1 Macross by 16k, and VF-1 Valkyrie by 13k. That should help with cruft complaints (they need work, but they are now half the size they were). I've only added 1 reliable source for each though as im tired, and this debacle is the only reason I'm up. However 1 source is a published book, and the other source is from Anime News Network. I've no doubt that more sources exist, but it requires time to collect and add them. Countless books and magazines have discussed both of these in great detail, and I suspect that given time these articles can clearly demonstrate notability. I propose at least delaying a final decision on these two articles for at least one week. The remaining articles are unlikely to demonstrate notability, and should be either be split to a seperate discussion, or have SDF-1 and VF-1 removed from the current discussion Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Dandy Sephy Stay cool will you ? This whole Afd is already tainted be the canvassing regardless the result and i strongly suggest Sloane to refrain himself/herself next time. --KrebMarkt 15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if i not made it clear. I was not talking about merging Macross and Robotech together.--SkyWalker (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A school board trustee does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. There are no other assertions of notability, and no significant news coverage. Prod was removed without a reason, so I brought it here. FingersOnRoids 23:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to List of Ethnic Slurs#C. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism (only "source" seems be Urban Dictionary). Not enough coverage to warrant inclusion at List of ethnic slurs. Not speedy deletable. Cycle~ (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cant find any hits via googleCannot establish notability and all the sources are in swedish §hawnpoo 22:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to University of Minnesota#East Bank §hawnpoo 02:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable area of a university campus TM 22:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Speedily deleted (G4) and temporarily salted. Original discussion is here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a weekend for these things. Yet another WP:CRYSTAL violator. No sources, no confirmation that I can find. —Kww(talk) 22:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Thingg. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this guy is notable or not, but the article as written is certainly propaganda in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged with List of Latin phrases (C-E). Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like it doesnt belong in an encyclopedia. I agree below with Mystache §hawnpoo 22:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
Seems to be original reasearch. I can find no evidence that such a concept as a manufacturing research practitioner exists. Comments by the author on the talk page (since deleted by the author) indicate that this is a doctoral study. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, recently coined, very few uses of this phrase. Google search for "Underlying Decline Rate Observed" only results in five links, two of them being Wikipedia. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course coinage is recent. OECD's IEA commenced discussion wrt decline and ramification issues in its Nov 2008 World Energy Outlook.--207.189.237.183 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted and create-protection Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 05:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game developer with no real claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Article speedied twice today, created a third time by a different editor whose only edit was to create this page, then the speedy deletion tag on it was removed by the creator of the first two versions. 0 gnews hits and just 30 ghits for this organization, none of which show a whiff of notability. Skipping prod because I know the tag will be removed in minutes. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, seems to be living person, non-notable rugby league player, dosen't meet rugby league notability guidelines, only external link is a first party source, badly written article, stub, nothing too much from Google to indicate notability or sources which could help expand the article. Recently PROD, removed, I brought it here. The Windler talk 21:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to University of Minnesota. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable feature of graduate students. No outside sources demonstrating notability TM 21:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to University_of_Minnesota. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable campus publication TM 21:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable award. Very limited press coverage. What exists goes mainly to show that it is not notable. For example, article about how the well-known mainstream people who were supposedly going to show up never came, and that most of the "guests" were porn fans who paid to meet their favorite performers. Only other significant coverage was "news of the weird" type about how the publicity-seeking award givers had nominated a popular TV show for a porn award. An award doesn't become notable just by having a famous person nominated for it -- otherwise there'd be an entry on Wikipedia for "Hullabaloo Wolfowitz's Favorite TV Performer Award" and such. This award is so insignificant that after only two years it's website has gone dead and there's a notice that the server bill hasn't been paid. Delete. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete, the BBC news article is about Billie Piper, and the Awards are not the focus of the article. There is the article from The Guardian, which may indicate that there may be something notable out there, but with no further sources fulfilling WP:GNG (and I couldn't find any myself), I agree with the nominator that the notability of these awards is very dubious at best. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 20:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to the Alexander Douglas dab page. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An empty page.
Thanks. Blaze42 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable recording, doesn't meet WP:NOTE or WP:MUSIC. Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable book, lacks 3rd party coverage, fails WP:BK Rtphokie (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Thingg. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a NN band, have been refused speedy. Suggest salting after the inevitable deletion. roux 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very short article that gives no information about the card game in question. No references. Article was previously deleted after a discussion, but has been recreated. Unionsoap (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
Comment Part of the essence of Wikipedia is that it is a community effort. Many articles have started as 'one-liners', posted by someone who may not have the time or ability to go further, or who may have found something interesting to cast into the arena for others to take up. Someone else will usually carry on the work, and others join in too. Lack of information becomes ground for deletion when it fails to identify the subject properly. Otherwise, it is cause for making the article a stub, provided other criteria are met. This does identify the subject. It is labelled a stub. There are now some references. Peridon (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 20:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD tag was removed by someone or other with the summary "do not disrupt", and I can't face squabbling over it.
This mis-titled article is abou a non-notable comedian, it seems to me. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding ((db-nocontext)) to a disambiguation page, repeatedly adding ((db-person)) to an article that is being worked upon and adding that tag once it has been removed is disruption. That tag explicitly says it should not be put back once it has been removed. Good to hear you don't want to squabble over it, though. Laura Davis has won a notable competition—Raw Comedy so the article should not be deleted. —Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will 'assume good faith' from now. By the way the other guy or myself ar e not here to destroy Wikipedia either, so there's no need to bombard articles with ((db-crap)) repeatedly thanks—Konsole4.2 (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Stifle (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A speedy tag and PROD tag were both removed without improvement. This article has no reliable sources and dubious notability, and strong overtones of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SOMEWHAT ROUGE DELETION OF COPYVIO. It's not really blatant copyvio, but chunks of copyvio wrapped up in ad copy and horseshit ("If you love Jennifer Lopez and heavenly-smelling scents, no doubt you’ve already amassed a collection of crystal bottles bearing J.Lo-endorsed fragrances," seriously?) don't make for much of an article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another crystal album, without title or release date. I try not to hold the fact that it is terribly written against it, but this is so bad, it's hard not to. —Kww(talk) 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was both speedy deleted at the request of the author (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that these people are sufficiently notable to have their own articles. It's all unsourced, and isn't really that "important". Also some serious COI issues, as the author claims that the subjects are themselves and their wife (see comment below). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 14:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't really a COI issue when there is nothing being promoted Just delete the pages I'm fine with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleepernutz (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very short, unreferenced article that that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Unionsoap (talk) 13:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No major notability established. Minor roles generally do not assert notability, especially for two distant and minor spells. The reliable citations point to her biographical background, but of nothing else. P.S. Stating that you are keeping solely for inclusionist principles is a guarantee that the vote is discounted. Please use valid rationales when commenting. seicer | talk | contribs 04:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the article is about her family (copied from the Joaquin Phoenix page) and not actually about Liberty herself. The remaining content does not establish any notability (two minor roles, one an unnamed role, in a single episode of a TV show. Delete
P.S. The version that was deleted back in 2005 when AFD was still VFD is nothing like this so G4 doesn't apply. Mgm|(talk) 13:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't make head or tail of this article... I don't think it's encyclopedic, anyway. I'm also concerned that it may have been copied (either that, or it sounds essay-like). ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted per authors request below. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 01:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very minor news article, not an encyclopedia article. It presents a problem, as per WP:NOT#NEWS. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but equally events could continue, for example similar protests elsewhere, making it a bigger story. It should be given time. I notice that they story also exists as part of the Bagshot page, where it is clearly relevant as part of the history of the village. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.210.153 (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted. Seraphim♥ 15:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a combination of a news story and a new book promotion. I don't see where it aligns with any Wikipedia editorial requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily delete per CSD G7. Non admin closure. §hawnpoo 06:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this page. I was a newbie when I created that and I didn't understand wikipedia policies. The article does not contain a single reliable source. I is also not notable. I am also nominating Pilgrimage (VUVR album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) LYKANTROP ✉ 12:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Body Language (Kylie Minogue album). MBisanz talk 00:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Extremely limited promo release. Never an official single release Paul75 (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fever (album). –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited promo release only, never an official single. Poor article largely of unreferenced OR Paul75 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Impossible Princess. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Limited released demo only, never released as a single Paul75 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I really urge the parties to discuss a merge at the talk page. MBisanz talk 08:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire content of this article is either trivia and speculation, or belongs on wiktionary. The non-trivial content is included in virus and wiktionary:virus entries already Wnjr (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a hoax, based on Camden, NJ, as the map shows. Unfortunately CSD doesn't apply to most hoaxes. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 00:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that the subject of this article meets the notability criteria set out at WP:BIO - no sources are provided and the only claim of notability is a statement on the article's talk page claiming that Mr Hill was friends with General Patton. The article's creator has stated that Mr Hill was his grandfather ([30]) so WP:NOT#MEMORIAL may also apply. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 23:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unreleased song that fails music notability guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. I reiterate my prod reason for this nom: None of the sources that I could find here or here establishes any notability for this show - only trivial and passing mentions. MuZemike 08:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 08:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability is in question. There are no verifying sources or wiki pages linking to this one" Jadekorm (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why this prod was contested. Unneeded disamb page with 2 items. Replaced links to page with hatnotes on each page pointing to the other. Atmoz (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a reliable source for title, tracklist, or release date. Blogs and YouTubes by the score, but nothing reliable. —Kww(talk) 05:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem to be very notable. We should not have an article about every criminal. One short mention in a list of criminals is not enough. I could not find more good sources about him. Prod was endorsed by User:B.Wind "WP:BLP1E - nothing to separate him from any other convicted murderer." but then removed by User:Oo7565. Apoc2400 (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I've proposed is obviously the best choice. Can anybody directly disagree with me? Belasted (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of unsourced statements (possibly OR), all sourced statements are from one website and one New Scientist article. As far as I can tell, the author of the one website the article is based upon has no publications in any Peer-Reviewed journal, thus WP:Reliable sources is a factor. Having its own article gives undue weight to a fringe theory; it should at most be covered by a few sentences at earthquake weather. RunningOnBrains 20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by overwhelming consensus per policies and guidelines at WP:NFT, WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly unremarkable game, article lacks assertion of notability. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 04:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is a neologism, the definition of which is sourced from a blog site, and not even from a specific blog post. The article itself deals with subject matter that is entirely subjective and does not take in mitigating factors in the comparison of the Premier League and La Liga. – PeeJay 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously in October 2008. No consensus to delete then and still no evidence of notability. Nothing that established notability and being broadcast on BBC Radio 4 does not provide inherent notability. StarM 03:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as general notability criteria. This is a candidate for congress, and has not received significant coverage yet. Firestorm Talk 03:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is some coverage:
1. MSNBC: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/06/1823619.aspx
2. The Hill: http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/dems-make-3rd-try-against-reichert-2009-03-05.html
3. The Olympian: http://www.theolympian.com/localnewsfeed/story/774313.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.229.168 (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC) — 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
*Keep If the standard is to be the nominee, we'd never have pages on almost all candidates for office. That's just not right.— 24.19.229.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Struck through because this IP has already !voted above - Firestorm Talk 15:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a non-notable Youtuber to me. He is #30 in subscriptions in one particular subcategory, something does not seem particularly notable to me. What do you guys think? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Awkward, but there seems to be enough discussion following relisting Fritzpoll (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following remarks are struck out because they were made in bad faith by a now blocked sockpupeteer Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
:T. Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
not notable; blatant advertisement/promotional Gmatsuda (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
*Delete - per above. (Damn though... I wish those IP votes counted. This is why they should create accounts). Versus22 talk 06:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Is it alright to close? Sorry, I wasn't aware about the sockpuppet situation. Versus22 talk 19:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 04:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Article asserts only a connection with a barely notable group, but this is not enough. Google hits seem to be largely to social networking sites. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be nothing notable about this gentleman's life or death. It was sad he died young, at war, and wonderul that his body was found 60+ years later, however there's no evidence that there was anything notable about the recovery of his body. It was briefly in the news when it happened, but there appears to be no long term notability. Fails NOTNEWS and essentially, althoug not technically ONEEVENT since he's passed. StarM 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Source engine mods. MBisanz talk 00:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any reliable secondary sources that can establish notability of this Source engine mod. I have tried searching the major game websites, including searches of "Synergy Source", "Synergy Steam", "Synergy Valve", and "Synergy game" and came up with nothing. MuZemike 02:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
violates WP:NOT (this is not a place for lists of indiscriminate stuff); also violates WP:OR (original research) Mhking (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 124.178.145.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable source that isn't a press release/self published is in forbes, and the coverage is not significant. Doesn't meet notability or web guidelines Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy. Moved to User:Lavendercrayons/Carolyn's Hesburgh Project (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as apparent schoolwork that creates an alternate version of an existing article, Theodore Hesburgh. Deprodded with the following explanation: In response to the deletion: Yes, this is schoolwork. However, I am comparing the first and second revisions of a report I wrote for school. I did not copy the article on Theodore Hesburgh; I wrote about him. Please wait until Monday before deleting it. I think the author misunderstood the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. Delete or userfy. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Your Choice Records. MBisanz talk 00:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. List of bands that signed with Your Choice Records, a minor German label. Any relevant information should be merged to the main article. We do not need a separate article. Also, a ((COI)) tag was removed at the same time as the prod. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Choice Records is an independent record label that has managed to create a fairly astonishing catalog of live European and American punk bands in an important period of time. It is very notable as it has documented and released moments of musical history that, even if it happened all independent and without major promotion and big money involved, had a huge impact to the development on music itself. I don´t think we need to argue about "punk" and question it´s existence here. But the musicians mentioned on the "List of Your Choice Records bands" really had strong believe in what they did and they made great changes possible, made people think and react. I think all this is very notable and NOT MINOR.
This extra page seems reasonable to feature the artists by their names. It is relevant information and Wikipedia, it is a nice overview and it is the right place to provide this information, so please help out to SAVE the info, not to delete! Thank you!
Some more, regarding the list of bands: Germany already agreed with the German version of the extra site. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Choice_Records_-_Diskografie and I really don´t understand the consideration for deletion. It feels so degrading...
Internal links to the pages of the various bands should fix the problem with the MISSING SOURCES, besides, there is a possibility to check the official site of the label and various sites about releases of the Your Choice Label on Wikipedia, done by various people...
To MERGE all of this to the main article seems to be a bit to much for that main site. What´s the problem with leaving it like it is? Do we have a problem with adding an extra site to Wikipedia for some reason?
Anyways please do what you have to do. It was a lot of work to prepare the info and site. If you need to delete for reasons I can not understand, well then go for it and delete. Party diktator (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A7 ; no source for "Green’s blog is one of the more widely-read political journals on the Internet, receiving thousands of visits daily from readers around the world", and the page has not been updated in some time. Ks64q2 (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should circular references from Google vis a vis Digg and StumbledUpon really count for a keep, though? 71.63.26.57 (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fluxx. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously nominated for deletion, resulted in merge. That was over a month ago, no merge done, so renominating for deletion. Oscarthecat (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable art exhibit, fails WP:V. References are either trivial mentions or not reliable sources. Ghits. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to meet requirements of WP:WEB; specifically, I can't find any reliable, third party references about this site. It's contributors are notable, and WDR's articles get reprinted, but there is no independent coverage. Recommend Delete, though I will withdraw if someone else has better luck finding sources. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tone 12:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no sources. If you look at the (freebie hosting) website listed on the article, it's just a bunch of kids playing at wrestling. They removed the speedy I placed, so I've put it at AFD. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a given name - Alfred is the given name, James is one of the middle names. On WP, we do not keep pages to list everyone with a certain combination of given name and middle name. Please see Frank William's AfD. Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Del. There are pairs of names like "John Mark" (the name of the reputed author of the Gospel of Mark), that seem to occur together far more than statstics of the individual names would predict. But apparently random pairs of just of the most popular American male names (which cover 90% of that population) would run over a million articles, and the corresponding ones for American females over 4 million. By the end of WP's 16th year, that may be no big deal, but for now it would be a major change in the nature of the 'pedia's infrastructure, to little effect.
--Jerzy•t 07:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a given name page would be giving information about a given name and a list of some notables with this given name. 'Alfred James' is not a given name, whereas 'Sarah-Louise' is. It is irrelevant whether any of these were known as 'Alfred-James', and none of the articles indicate that they were anyway. Boleyn (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 22:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism. Only possible notable claim reference is in Microsoft marketing materials. Not enough on its own for notability. Must have more references appear or else it's non-notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added to content and included several more references citing several additional, reputable sources. I'll continue to build references and clean the definition. Microsoft reference came as as surprise to me as I was researching the term. I felt it necessary to include it with the definition. --Peyronnin (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obsolescence has a very generic feel. Digital Amnesia seems to really capture the transient state of our digital knowledge and its dependency on systems that are updated without regard to what is being lost. Obsolescence pertains to the equipment, the software and the technicians who operate on both. Digital amnesia pertains to the knowledge that is lost due to the rapid pace of change. Additionally, digital covers all hardware/software, not exclusively computers, in this crazy converged digital world. --Peyronnin (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I love vacuum tubes! I have them in my guitar amp - nice warm sound. Of course, I old enough to remember tube testers at the hardware store when I was young.
There is some history to the "digital amnesia" concept. I used it when I taught Freshman level technology courses at my college. Perhaps think of it as the catalyst that has created the problem as well as the victim. It seems that the further we progress in developing stores of knowledge to be accessible from anywhere by anyone, the more tranisient and vulnerable it becomes. This is only possible by turning them into bits, eight per byte (do you remember EBCDIC?) It seems there should be an industry based on converting data from one format to another. There might be a long tail to support a nice business model. --Peyronnin (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Ashley (singer). Mgm|(talk) 13:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails wp:music Oo7565 (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Music promotion company with no evidence of notability as defined in WP criteria (WP:N]). Article cites no references. The only online information I can find about this organization is its own myspace webpage and related pages on similar websites. (Maybe this music promoter will be notable some day, but it's not there yet.) An earlier version of the article (different title) was speedied. This one was prodded; the creator removed the prod template but did not address the notability issue, so here we are at AfD. Orlady (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a hoax, certainly unsourced and does not seem notable. Grahame (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged for a few days now, and it still has no sources, and no real apparent notability. Right now it looks like OR with red links on wikipedia. I may be wrong, and I welcome that if the sources exist, but this should be on AFD for that reason.
There may, in some book, be a real concept of "abstract realism." Whatever that concept is, it needs to have sources here. If there is an abstract realism but it's not the same as what's being referred to here, that is not a reason to keep this topic (unless someone does the work to reform it completely). Shadowjams (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 13:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was prodded as having no reliable sources, no notability asserted. Prod was endorsed. An editor with a long history of removing prods with no reason per Wikipedia standards removed the prod notices and the notability tags. His only source added to the article was an IMDB page making an unreliable claim about the person's age. Only has extreme bit parts, notability clearly failed. DreamGuy (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable individual, not referenced, does not assert notability, no reliable sources, promotional Troyster87 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable unreferenced RS free promotional article for bit actor Troyster87 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TangibleDreams (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)*All details listed are verified through the Internet Movie Database. Also entertainer is included/referenced in another wiki-article/page for "The Search for the Next Elvira" as a key player/role. Would the page for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson, altered by her management and updated by her agent be considered 'conflict of interest' as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TangibleDreams (talk • contribs) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TangibleDreams (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC) *Entertainer is also listed on wikiarticle for Elvira/Cassandra Peterson which makes two separate article refrences.[reply]
TangibleDreams (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Source coverage available at: Cassandra Peterson see 'impersonators' The Search for the Next Elvira appeared in every episode and served as make-up artist for the finalists. Far more than a bit part.[reply]
The result was Procedural keep - nominator is sockpuppet banned for bad faith AfD nominations
non notable musician, not referenced, no reliable sources Troyster87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability for this organization mentioned, just brief explanation of. Seeing limited references in Google generally, over 4 years of existence, little improvement. Lucas20 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy article about non-notable custom computer system builders; long history of seeming COI edits Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's very much a notable company. It's one of six existing small computer manufacturing companies in America, it's shown up in every major computer magazine...how is it not notable? And as for COI edits...I work for a competitor and I am actually trying to keep this article up because our industry is so niche and is an endangered species, so to speak. We all stick together. Just because you're not familiar with this industry doesn't mean it's "not notable". --HeatherMTaylor (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC) — HeatherMTaylor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Here is a complete list of all 3rd party reviews done on the company. It's sourced off of AVAdirect's website, but all the links are to independent reviewing sources. That should be proof of notability. http://www.avadirect.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=40 --HeatherMTaylor (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With OrangeMike's help, the listing should be more in line with Wiki standards. Here are some links to prove notability:
http://reviews.cnet.com/1770-5_7-0.html?query=avadirect&tag=srch
http://reviews.digitaltrends.com/review/5568/ava-direct-gaming-pc-workstation-review
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/gadgetpr0n/66120/AVADirect-Gaming-PC-Review.html
http://computers.toptenreviews.com/gaming-laptops/avadirect-inc/avadirect-inc-avadirect-d901c-reviews-24154.htm
http://overclockershq.com/hardware-reviews/ava-direct-custom-gaming-pc-video-review.html
http://www.crn.com/white-box/199904838
Let me know if you need more information...or different information.--HeatherMTaylor (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was that there is a clear consensus to delete because the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author made a page about himself Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the article, and NOTABLE point are 1) the ANECDOTE 2) RICH productivity 3) remarkable COINCIDENCE of scientific discovery on FERMAT (Wiles/Imbalzano) 4) eccentricity..? Imbalzanog (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Attention, in the interest of all the users. 1) I stayed contacted from a certain < anime_addict_aa@yahoo.com>: he has recopied the page ""http:// en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Imbalzano" on "http]:// www.wikinfo.org/ index.php/ Imbalzano"; he believe to do me a favor, without any request from me. 2) Applications from isolated users exist for cancellation of the page on "wikipedia" in base to the conceitedness of a personal interest, to which I have already answered, without strong objections from administrative part. 3) I remember: other interventions (past and future) they have made said page of the all neutral! 4) Now, finished the 5 days of discussion, I would ask kindly, also in the interest of the democracy on Wikipedia, to conclude with the acceptance of the page "Imbalzano." 5) Certainly, the ownership of English language will be bettered. User and member: "imbalzanog" (= Imbalzano "Garant"), for don't confuse this with "Giovanni" Imbalzano. Imbalzanog (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC) For ROBsavoie. Please read, and with much attention: see you the ISSN and ISBN?! NOT DELETE Imbalzanog (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP? Article is not political and not is commercial! Ah, ChrisTheDude is a scientist..? Imbalzanog (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not feel the subject of this article passes WP:BIO; I've looked for references and have come up empty-handed for anything that passes WP:RS 132 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non notable COI unreferenced autobiography on an unaccomplished individual Troyster87 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
promo, non notanle, unreferenced, doesn't even have the chinese name included Troyster87 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mgm|(talk) 13:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising. User is creating multiple pages for his organization with similar content (for promotional purpose) and little notability. Other similar pages are Mizuphone and Mizu Softswitch Calltech (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]