The result was delete. Arguments from the recently created accounts are weak and lack substantial evidence. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced article about a subject of dubious notability. JBsupreme (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod/prod2 for inability to find any source for this. No relevant google-hits for this name and either month/year or town-name. Deprodded by creating editor without supplying anything to aid verifiability. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Micachu. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NALBUMS: mixtapes are in general not notable and there is absoultely no indication this is otherwise. Redir to artist contested by author. I42 (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Acting deputy commissioner of police for London, not exactly a high profile role (unlike the commissioner, who is a politically significant figure). Flagged for tone since march and not fixed, only one source, a news story. Most of the Google hits are news stories, we seem to be blazing the trail in publishing a biography. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV essay. I only recently discovered this one after finding Justification of Terrorism in Islam, which is also up for deletion for the same reason. Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod... article fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS, WP:OR and WP:V... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. treating as prod Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant WP:AUTO and WP:COI from a WP:SPA. This is a completely non-notable individual without any verifiable significance that would satisfy WP guidelines. He's just a minor bureaucrat in the Roman Catholic church. His writings all fail WP:BK too. Frankly, I'm shocked that a priest would come here to egotistically write so much about himself. Be that as it may, no matter how much he goes on about himself, he doesn't satisfy WP:N Qworty (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last AFD closed as no consensus because of users !voting keep because of two sentences. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One sentence, does not establish notability, no references, no progress. fetchcomms 03:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List_of_postcode_districts_in_the_United_Kingdom. I'm unsure that this is a deletion issue. There seems to be agreement that neither list is optimal at the moment, so I am closing this as a tentative Merge in order that involved editors can work on it. If some sort of a merge takes place then this article can be redirected to the other (or vice versa), but would not be deleted anyway in order to keep attribution. Black Kite 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork of existing List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom article. MRSC (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I was researching my !vote for this AfD, I couldn't help noticing that List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom seems not to be a sortable wikitable. Why not?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing about the list in this format is that it gives easy checking that a postal town and county is correct for a specific postcode. Providing the List of postcode districts in the United Kingdom was made sortable, merging this data with that page would make sense with further links then possible to the specific wiki-pages for each postal district —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.42.171 (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tom King was a fictional construct of William Harrison Ainsworth in his novel Rookwood (novel) and appears to have been based on Matthew King, a real-life colleague of 18th-century highwayman Dick Turpin.
The article appears to be mostly original research. It is riddled with errors, such as "Turpin fled to York where he was later arrested for sheep stealing", and "Turpin accidently shot King with his pistol" (this latter sentence is based on an eye-witness statement that appears embellished).
I suggest that the article be deleted, and a redirect be placed to Dick Turpin. Parrot of Doom 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources can be found which use the term Severn Escarpment, therefore it is doubtful whether it requires an article — Rod talk 13:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be an education institute of any (proper) type, and I can't find anything saying that it is or providing third-party verification. Proper schools are fine, but this screams diploma mill to me in capital letters. The problem is that I can't find anything that directly verifies that; it's just little hints. The website is designed by a five year old, which is instantly suspicious, and I cannot find any proof of the claims made (that Lou Riggs and Al Epstein taught a course, that it was mentioned in Letterman and various books, that it was the official NFL school). You'd think that if any of this was true, free-press-releases.com wouldn't be the only third-party source I can find. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doorology appears to be a proposed area of academic study which has not gained any traction. Lars Frers introduced a paper on it at a York U congress. But there is scant sources to support this as something that has gained any academic recognition. The reference [13] provided in the article is from Frers, and as such is not independent of the subject. And inline external link [14] provides a passing mention in coverage about the conference. In my own search for sources, all I could find was [15] which is by Frers. Google Scholar provides nothing to establish this area of study as notable. Whpq (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Roosevelt family. Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the person mentioned in the caption is Alexander Liptak, and the person who did most of the edits on the page, as well as put the content on the Roosevelt disambiguation, has the handle "Xanderliptak" Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the image does match the blazon provided by the source, please read the source again. I agree an article dedicated solely to the coat of arms of those named Roosevelt is unnecessary. Perhaps renaming the article to ‘Roosevelt (surname)’ would be appropriate and also fall in line with other articles like Bewick, Kennedy (surname) and so on. I simply find it odd to have an article named ‘X’ that has a series of links, then have a mirror article named ‘X (surname)’ that has all the same links with only an additional four or five small paragraphs. But, so be it. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 18:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the source, then you saw the blazon reads, “Argent upon a grassy mound a rose bush proper bearing three roses Gules barbed and seeded proper.” That is what is presented in the painting I provided. As you can tell by the differing images in the source, styling is irrelevant so long as the blazon is met. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 03:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create the history of the Roosevelt families to promote a painting. Rather, I made the painting to illustrate a part of Roosevelt history. Having an article to explain the origins and history of a surname is not a new or uncommon idea to Wikipedia, see List of most common surnames. I am also not setting out to delete images and replace them with my own, but found certain articles without an emblazon or a full emblazon, which I am able to provide. However, as you may be able to tell, they do take some time to create, so, like any artist, I would appreciate the recognition of my efforts. Also a point, proper citation requires paintings and images to note the artist, even ones in the public domain. While this may have fallen wayside with Google images and photo hosting, hotlinking and so forth where the details of an image have been lost, it does not mitigate the responsibility to cite an author of any work when appropriate. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not up for deletion, the Roosevelt page is. I would not object to anyone creating a completely free image and thus replacing mine, but I still insist a surname page be created for Roosevelt. The images in the AHS source are from the 20th century, so are not themselves free images either. So, while there would be limited licensing on those black and white images, I provided a colour version in the same measure; I would think that an upgrade to a nonfree black and white. No, I do not release images for commercial use, but I do for any academic use. If I was truly trying to promote myself, I would release the images to be used by commercial interests, such as a printing company or news media, as attribution would still apply and such companies would be required to print my name whenever the image is used. At best, as I doubt coat of arms are even something highly researched on Wikipedia, my name will be known amongst 3rd grade students researching a biographical paper and perhaps think a coat of arms is cool enough to print off and attach at the end of their essay. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopedia is not meant to include only the most notable, otherwise there would be no need for an Robert Kennedy article because of John Kennedy, no World War I article because of World War II. There are many misconceptions about heraldry, and my efforts are to dispel them here in Wikipedia where I have the opportunity to. When people google "Smith coat of arms," they several companies giving false information in the hope of making a profit; often, these people get taken for upwards of $1000 because they are poorly informed. I have added coat of arms sections to famous people so that persons searching amongst Wikipedia will perhaps retain the idea that this wiki is a good place to search out heraldic information later. I have added heraldry information to surname articles, and would like to see other surname articles include or be created so as to include the same, so that people will be better informed about the whole system. Yes, I know that many people have no concern for it, and that those discussing it here may not view family histories and heraldry as important, but others do. That should be enough to include it. There is a very detailed article on the Smith name, and a very detailed one on heraldry, which should provide enough of a precedence to allow for a Roosevelt surname page and for it to include armorial displays. ‡ XANDERLIPTAK 10:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous pages in Category:Polish coats of arms that are dedicated to a coat of arms alone, and usually have nothing more than an image and a few sentences. I am proposing a surname page that would include history and coat of arms and so forth. No, I did not come with much more than two coat of arms and an origin, but there are other surname pages (and those Polish heraldry articles) that exist freely with far less than what I have written; also, as Wikipedia is an add what you know and interests you, other information will come as it pleases people. The whole system is repetitive, and can not be helped. You have the individual’s page that then gets summarized for his family’s page which then links to the family branch’s page which links to the surname page which links to the disambiguation page; they all have the same information and simply become more generalized the further out they get. Those that have issue with a Roosevelt surname page being to small in scope to only have room to eventually include origin, migration, history and heraldry should first concern themselves with riding Wikipedia of the Luk coat of arms type articles. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uninformative article about company with little or no notability WuhWuzDat 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. Singularity42 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related articles because they were created by the same author at the same time, and are directly related to each other:
Singularity42 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All three articles meet all criteria and can be verified by multiple sources.The individual/band and company can all be contacted (and have been).The authenticity of all three articles are NOT in question.
www.forwardregression.com
www.myspace.com/officialcollapse
www.myspace.com/jasonjamesmackenzie
www.myspace.com/forwardregression
The artists material have been available since 2006 globally. The facts are not in question.The notice has been contested and will continue to be contested until all facts are verifted if necessary. Impaled666 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Please state with examples what is missing from the articles.All facts are easily verifable and are obviously not in question. Many wiki pages regarding Artists/Companies/Individuals contain less information and these are easily verifable and all parties can be contacted.Impaled666 (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Wiki guidelines: "Wikipedia:Notability (people)" Basic criteria A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Entertainers Shortcuts: WP:ENT WP:ENTERTAINER Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: 1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2.Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3.Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
The article for the individual meet the criteria laid out in the Wiki guidelines,as well as the criteria for the band and label since all are releated.The verifiability is not in question. Impaled666 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Search Google collapse destroying by design Pages upon pages of enteries Impaled666 (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Metal archives Collapse entry: http://www.metal-archives.com/band.php?id=42703 Impaled666 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you all take a good look at the entire death metal music spectrum covered on wiki because many other artists listed meet less criteria and your open DISCRIMINNATION against our business will not go unnoticed going forward.Many artists are not covered on the internet,not all magazines are scanned into the internet.Even if the entry is deleted, we will have it relisted until it appears permenantly.The artist is not new however the company is,and does exist and you arguments are nothing less than hypocrisical and disriminatory. Impaled666 (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated discussion about difference between PROD and AfD. Does not belong here.
| ||
---|---|---|
Wiki guidelines state we are allowed to contest and delete the proposed deletion notice.If we get blocked,we will move up the appeal process at Wiki until it is rectified.Do not remove our contestion block,we are allowed to post that.Do not vandalize our enteries.We are also allowed to delete the deletion proposal notice but it was continually readded,if you keep breaking Wiki guidelines we will file a complaint against the users in question Impaled666 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STOP EDITING OUR PAGE WE ARE WORKING ON IT.WE ARE ALLOWED TO ADD THIS BLOCK:
Impaled666 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting do what you are stating.And you are removing part of the article that we are allowed to post.Impaled666 (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Attack page or vandalism. Tikiwont (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense biography with BLP problems - A7 was swatted away, so the article is being brought here. Warrah (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! - offensive material concerning an unaffiliated individual - please ban member, uses wikipedia for supposedly 'comedic' value at others expense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.220.21 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - First of all, I love that the IP that added to the vanadlism on this page has voted to delete it. Seconly, the speedy was removed by this same IP. I've added the speedy back and watchlisted. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - could also qualify under G10 in its current state. noq (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not show notability. Appears to have been created by someone with a conflict of interest (user name is domain name of company website) who has removed coi issues tag without addressing the issue. noq (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability criteria. All his works are self published, Engen books being owned by him. - Gwen 18:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The result was delete. All points considered. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic coatrack article. The real subject of this article isn't Laura DiDio, it's the SCO-Linux controversies. Hey! Look! We already have an article on that. Laura DiDio doesn't meet our notability guidelines because there are not reliable, third-party sources in which she is the subject of coverage. Incidentally, according to the talk page, this article was initially titled Didiot, and that remained a redirect until 2009. We shouldn't be covering, let alone repeating, non-notable nasty names from blogs and Slashdot. This article is a disgrace and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 18:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He exists, there are a couple minor sources, but he doesn't meet the notability of a baseball player, as he did not make the major leagues, play in any of the major Asian leagues, or play internationally. Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such political system as the one described in this article. The word itself does not have a political definition. Either WP:MADEUP or WP:NEO would fit. Warrah (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC
The result was speedy deleted by User:Anthony.bradbury per WP:CSD#G1: Patent nonsense and WP:CSD#G3: Blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (and possibly non-existent) slang expression. WP:NEO problems. Warrah (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: Since this was the second compilation with the identical track listing, a mention of this 2006 release could be added to the article for The Universal Masters Collection (Grace Jones album). Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge: The information in this PROD page should be made into a special section of the article for the original Island Life. In fact, a listing of the four bonus tracks is already there. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the ridiculous record company duplication, this is a possibly notable standalone release. Notable artist, major label release, informative article (though it needs sources). The information in this article should not be lost. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the ridiculous record company duplication, this is a possibly notable standalone release. Notable artist, major label release, informative article (though it needs sources). The information in this article should not be lost. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was closed as duplicate discussion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 19:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge: Since there are duplicate Grace Jones compilations I can see the rationale for deleting some of them, but not all of them. This one was later duplicated, so I suggest Keep for this article, and the information for the identical subsequent compilation Colour Collection (Grace Jones) should be merged into this article. They are possibly notable releases for a certainly notable artist, but the record company duplication is pretty ridiculous. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended from here appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP —Marco Sneck is a musician who have been contributed to albums of bands like sentenced, play as the keyboard player of poisonblack, kalmah and most recently nothnegal. and according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles he is a notable musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mv head (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Placed article for discussion after PROD tag was removed without reason given. After some research into this and similar articles, I've been unable to find any apparent reliable third-party sources to use as references. There are no citations used in the article to suggest or affirm notability, and no Wikipedia articles extended or linking in appear to grant notability by legacy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and if you google for the title, several results show up linking it to different media websites. --Ntxdr (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: this album have received significant coverage and includes well known musicians and produced by a known producer so it must be kept.
The result was delete. There is an overwhelming consensus to delete albeit there have been improvements towards the end of tje discussion period. I considered whether this would have markedly changed the views of the editors who commented before these changes but did not see significant evidence of a change of direction in the discussion to permit me to consider discarding earlier delete votes or relisting this Spartaz Humbug! 06:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has 2 very major flaws:
At previous AfD in 2007 one of the main "keep" arguments was also to give people time to fix article. Now there have been no edits in last month, and no notable changes in content in last 14 months. Staberinde (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Straightforward synthesis--The article may have been inspired by one of the references used, the classic work, Edward Shepherd Creasy, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: From Marathon to Waterloo. London: Richard Bentley, &c 1851. and dozens of later editions. [19] . Unfortunately, it has it at 15. The number is obviously a matter of opinion and basically just a hook to write a book around. The Creasey, however, might be worth an article. DGG ( talk ) 11:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::The list wouid not be under this title, for there is no particular reason to limit it to eight. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC) I have struck my comment as no longer applicable to the present state of the article. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
:::On reflection, Delete entirely -- WP works best when there is one article on one subject. The selection of battles is inevitably a POV issue. Creasy's 15 battles, or any one else's list would provide the basis for a useful category, but a synthesis, such as this is not useful. If there were common features to several battles, an article drawing out those similarities might have been useful, but I very much doubt there are any, except their perceived importance. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | This article provides an overview of those battles whose outcome has been judged by at least two modern historians to be of lasting cultural or political importance for European nation-states—or European polities recognized by historians as independent nation-states—and invading outside forces. | ” |
Strong Keep. Massively notable topic on a theme addressed by at least hundreds , probably tens of thousands of sources. There's no more danger of synth here than there is with our article on heterodox economics in the absence of universal agreement on which branches are covered by that umbrella term, or with our article on sexual positions where no single source is used to decide which of the hundreds of variations to include. We're actually better set with this article in that as described in the lede we only talk about the battles that at least two historians agree have macrohistoric significance.
Here's an extract from Worlds at War: The 2,500-year struggle between East and West by distinguished professor Anthony Pagden and published by Oxford University Press. ( this source now added to the article)
"to later generations it seemed obvious that Poitiers represented a moment in the history of the West in which the whole of Europe had been saved from the forces of barbarism which were forever poised to engulf her"
-- here we have the concept of macrohistorical importance in all its overwhelming significance.
"in the subsequent western historiography ... the battle of Poitiers {i.e. Tours} was represented as another Marathon.*" -- here we have analyses on different macrohistorical battles. Secondary sources dont come any better than Oxford University Press!
(Marathon and not Thermopilae is actually the key battle from the Persian War "the battle of Marathon, even as an event in English history, is more important than the battle of hastings" - John Stuart Mill "{at Marathon} the interest of the whole worlds history hung trembling in the balance" Hegel )
Granted the OUP source is about the ideological struggle as well as battles of macrohistorical importance. As an example of a source concentrating on battles there's History's Greatest Battles by Nigel Cawthorn where the first line on the dust jacket is "Great Battles mark historys turning points" or the best selling Carnage and Culture. There are at least several hundred more where these came from!
There are a few issues before we can restore the article's GA status. Theres no universal agreement on which battles to include and certainly not on there being exactly 8. The lede has been altered to reflect this. Definetly we should include Marathon and the successful invasion of Constantinople. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All above reasons for deletion now moot following improvements?
This was a reasonable nomination as in its previous form the article did indeed violate our synth and OR policies. We've fixed this by. 1) Taking out the claim that their are only 8 specific battles regarded as macro historically significant. 2) Adding a section dealing with the general theme of battles as a macro historic event , well supported with sources. (PS its well accepted practice not to have sources in the lede as long as claims made are validated later on) 3) Adding further quality sources where a major or principal theme is specifically on European / Western Civilisation being saved by decisive battles.
1) The lede has been amended so it doesnt mention Asia and Africa. 2) The fall of Constantinople has been included where Europeans were defeated. 3) Criticism of the overal theme is now included from probably the most formidable ivy leauge opponent of these views , professor Hamid Dabashi . 4) Even reading the web link from Hamid Dabashi , will show that far from being a 19th century view, the position that Europe and the West owe their existence to these key battles still has considerable currency. There are tens of thousands of sources for this, including some that are very recent and high quality like the 2008 work by eminent professor Judith Herrin now added to the article. 5) Neither most of the sources nor the article takes the position that European civilisation is superior - the closest premise to that is that there's something unique about European Civilisation that would have been lost to the world if the continent had been conquered by people with a very different outlook such as the Persians or Muslims.
Having said all that, the concern raised by editor Artw remains valid, historical facts being what they are there will always be a risk of this article being used as a coat rack for anti Muslim propaganda. So I dont mind if its deleted for that reason. But if it gets deleted for synth that will be surreal even by wiki standards! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its been great to have the additional feedback on the POV issues. The objectionable section heading has been changed. There's no denying the subject is inherently POV, however its a topic which has been the principle theme for many mainstream works. Our policies dont prohibit us addressing POV topics - as long as we respect NPOV by including views from all significant perspectives. It would be great to have further criticism added - I was considering a reference to Guns, Germs, and Steel but havent read the work so arent sure whether it counters the importance of battles or if its just against the bias that Europeans have superior cultural traits.
As I understand it the prevailing view among those interested in macro history & geo strategy is that untill about 500 BC the East was unchallenged for the 1st 2.5 thousand years after civilisation arose, and then for about the same period the balance swung towards the west, though it has only enjoyed net greater capability to project power for about 300 years. According to Niall Ferguson the balance started to swing back towards the East from the early 20th century, and in the last 5 years or so, and especially in the aftermath of the financial crises, its expected the east will once again over take the west sometime this century. This is felt even more keenly on the streets of Chinese and Indian cities than it is by folk here in London. The sort of person who might be offended by the implication of Western superiority is going to know all this, so there probably isnt as much risk of the POV offending anyone as some might think.
On the point about not all the battles being against forces large enough to subdue the continent, this is true but the victories were sufficient to check the overall invasion plans. Around the 7th and 8th century Islam had enormous expansionary force, and their preferred direction of conquest was westward. They also expanded to the East, North and South - but to the east were the developed civilisations of India and China, to the North endless plains and savage nomadic tribes, to the south much of the land was desert. In western Europe they had a settled but undeveloped population, much of the worlds most fertile land, and ancient centres of prestige like Rome, so they directed much of their invasion efforts towards Europe.
Its hopefully now abundantly clear that there are plentiful quality sources dedicated to the same topic, tying together the various battles with the common theme that they were pivotal events shaping the course of European history. Please can any folk who still feel there's a synth issue after the latest improvements identify specifically which novel or synthetic ideas the article imparts which isnt attributable to the sources? The article rescue squad will be delighted to do the legwork and make any needed improvements! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | Also in 2008, Professor Judith Herrin has wrote that had Constantinople not thwarted the first and second arab siege of Constantinople, the attackers would have used the resources of the capital city to spread Islam into the Balkans, Italy and western Europe. She says Constantinople’s resistance of the second and first siege, along with Charles Martel's victory against invaders at Tours, were crucial to allowing European society to take shape at a time when it was politically fragmented and undeveloped" | ” |
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure this does not meet the notability criterion. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I note that the AFD template was not added to the article until the 15th, but I see no other reasonable outcome for this discussion, and no additional comment have been made in the past 2+ days. There is no point relisting this. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable academic philosopher: neither very well-known nor influential. Has published with good presses etc. but so have very many other philosophers who wouldn't be regarded as warranting Wikipedia entry. --Alephomega (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC) — Alephomega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
— Alephomega (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a soap character with no references, no source, nothing. Only plot. Nor even when the character appeared. Magioladitis (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep James086Talk | Email 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questionably notable living person who has apparently requested deletion. Hipocrite (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made up some day, or some combination. Should be CSD, but its not. 7 day deliberation. Shadowjams (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
y is this bad? seems what i do for a living. sry. don't get this.
Although the article itself is too short and not very well written, and the phenomenon of disobedient guide dogs probably does not merit its own article, there are many references on the web, over a period of several years, to intelligent disobedience as it relates to corporate culture and management styles. It would be better to expand the article, rather than deleting it. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i tried to clean it up. - Fawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Fawn (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Rhomb (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. The article asserts none of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. She has published a NN book: not enough. An interview and an article about photographing herself giving oral sex) may support WP:V but hardly WP:N. Rhomb (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 by Secret (talk · contribs). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. PROD contested by anonymous IP editor. Favonian (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merging can be discussed on the associated talk pages. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Centre-left/Centre-right are vague terms that have no clear definitions. Essentially they mean a position between the centre and the Left or Right. There are no clear definitions for the terms, and no literature to support the articles. Despite existing for several years, no sources have been found and they are entirely original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for same reason:
*Keep Found this as a result of Talk:Daily Mail where one editor seems insistent that "centre-right" is not a meaningful term as it may refer to a coalition. Collect (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) redacted as a result of being charged with having a bias against the proposer - as such was not my intent, I redact the !vote Collect (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No longer notable in videogames journalism field or scriptwriting Bumlord97 (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematical modeling language and modeling system with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. copyvio GedUK 12:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by article creator, which is a WP:SPA for Ken Wong and his company (article deleted). This bio article fails WP:PROF. Awards listed are not notable by our standards. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete wikipedia is not for advertising Theserialcomma (talk) 04:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 04:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability (academics) Pdcook (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2009 (
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable professional wrestler; the article appears to be written by Mr. Bullen. Google searching does not dig up anything to confirm notability as per WP:BIO or WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are serious problems in this article: how is race defined for purposes of classification here? Self-identification of race by the criminal? As an example, people who identify themselves as Hispanic but have dark skin are sometimes called black or African-American in press articles: who would be right in that case? You can easily classify someone by date of birth, place of birth, occupation, etc., but race is not always so easy to classify. There's an empty section "Multiracial & Other": who isn't multiracial? Also, lumping "Asian" and "Indian" together into a single group makes little sense. This article seems like an impossible task to make scientifically accurate and objective. Unreferenced, original research per WP:NOR. MuffledThud (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn per WP:HEY. COI and copyright issues resolved by re-stubbing and subsequent expansion; notability was only secondary concern. Cybercobra (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are significant copyright and conflict of interest issues with this article (see its history tab) and I am unable to find solid evidence of notability, although I admit I am not well-versed in the subject matter. Cybercobra (talk) 03:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search for "Gerald Thompson Mutton" does reveal a limited number of hits, including references to him receiving the Memorial Cross. But this appears to be impossible, as his particular medal was awarded to spouses and next of kin of all war dead. Unfortunately, the few Ghits are no longer accessible. I've tried to vain to find a WP guideline or even essay on veterans. Is there one? I can only assume that WP:BIO applies, and on that basis, Mr. Mutton does not merit an article due to a lack of encyclopedic notability. My doubts over how he could have received this particular cross leads me to discount the criterion "The person has received a notable award or honor." If someone could clear that up, I might withdraw this nom. (Could he have received some other truly notable honour, with those few Google search results simply mistaken?) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep How anyone could think these articles aren't about notable topics is beyond me; each is reasonably sourced. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Violates notability requirements. Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Family
Also:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Conmatrix (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On June 8, I requested some third party, reliable sources to attest to this software's notability [[48]], and none has been added. I searched for some mentions, and everything I found was either trivial or not reliable. I don't think this software is notable by wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blog per WP:WEB, unreferenced. MuffledThud (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon CynofGavuf 10:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Semi professional and fails guidelines. CynofGavuf 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional and is a mess. Not even sure what the content is. CynofGavuf 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a discography for a musician who has no article about albums that have no articles themselves. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am completing this nomination on behalf of IP 134.106.119.40. Contested PROD: the PROD was placed by IP 134.106.119.38, probably the same user, and the reason given was:
This painter does not fulfil WP:BIO. He is just locally know and has absolutely no importance in German or international art-comunity. The article about Gori in the German Wikipedia was just delet for the same reason.
I express no opinion, but confirm that his article was deleted from German Wikipedia on 25 Oct on grounds of "evident irrelevance" - roughly equivalent to our WP:CSD#A7 though more loosely drawn. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to With the Lights Out. JForget 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to With the Lights Out. JForget 21:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song and unreferenced —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Left Behind (series). JForget 21:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the general notability guideline; no third-party sources are cited. Minor fictional character with no out-of-universe impact. *** Crotalus *** 16:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist per WP:ARTIST and WP:BIO, most references given either fail to mention by name or only ambiguously credit "Austin". No significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS. Prod removed by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "keep" opinions mostly do not address the notability issue that has been raised in the nomination. Redirect at editorial discretion. Sandstein 07:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be redirected and merged into Worldwide Faith Missions, since he does not meet the qualifications of notability for a standalone article. That is, there are no significant, independent, reliable sources. Although previous deletion discussion was closed with no consensus, a subsequent review demonstrated that their was sufficient doubt as to the notability of this subject to call for continued discussion. HokieRNB 05:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Phil Bridger's analysis of the sources above. Jackie-thai (talk · contribs)'s assertion that this individual is notable because "was recognized by his alma mater (University of Pittsburgh) for his missionary service" does not establish notability; a minor, non-notable award does not confer notability per WP:ANYBIO. Serving as an adviser to the White House also does not establish notability because the White House has many advisers; only advisers who have official positions or have had an impact of the administration are notable. Having a notable cousin and visiting Mother Theresa do not establish notability because notability is not inherited.
Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, a biography of a living person sourced to only blogs, forums, and other unreliable sources should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable organization. The only reference I can find in a reliable source is an article in the New Statesman (link), which by itself is not sufficient to establish notability criteria. Suggest deletion per WP:ORG. Muchness (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 21:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to far fall short of notability guidelines; relatively minor comedian with no significant claim to fame and article tagged since April 2008 with no significant improvement. A brief attempt to find online sources failed to ferret out anything of significance. — Coren (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Another editor had nominated this for speey deletion, which I declined and added a prod tag for them. A quick rationale for deleting this article is "The article is about software that does not have any reliable sources to establish notability." NW (Talk) 17:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor YouTube celebutante who came in third in a minor reality show. Seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Black Kite 12:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary page per MOS:DAB: The recommended practice in these situations is to place a hatnote on the primary topic article to link directly to the secondary topic. The primary has a hatnote to the only other entry, so this page serves no purpose. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 21:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PROD was contested, no explanation was given. I will notify de-prodding editor. I brought the article here because WP:PROD says not to re-prod the article. My original reason was that it does not appear to pass WP:NFILM. Tim1357 (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of names: no indication of notability, no references and virtually no context. Were it not for the fact the article is long-standing I'd suggest this was speedily deletable (A1/A7). In addition, nothing else about the article seems to meet the definition of a list in the Wikipedia sense - in particular, it does not 'organise information' - none of the entries is a link (well, one is - but it links to a mirror of the same page) - it is literally just an alphabetically organised collection of names. I42 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
seemingly non notable with no RS to attest to notability Theserialcomma (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Filing another broken AFD that was red-linked and nobody could be arsed to finish. Open your eyes; I'm not the only one who can fix these things. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC, no notable members, chart singles or sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources listed, no assertion of notability. Procedural nomination: this article was PROD'ed for 7 days, but was also deleted via PROD in 2008, so is ineligible for deletion by PROD. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Including the nominator, there seems to be a consensus that the subject is not sufficiently notworthy. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO, with little or no third party coverage that I can find. Another of the hundred thousand authors who write inspirational little books about becoming confident/organisational structure/other bollocks. Ironholds (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO in referencing and WP:ENTERTAINER in notability. His single notable position so far is an extremely minor role in The Wire, and I can find no evidence that he passes the multiple, reliable, third-party etc standard set. Ironholds (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Madventures. Edit history remains intact in case anyone wants to preform a merger –Juliancolton | Talk 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another unsourced biographical article about a living person, as if we need more of these. I'm sure the show he is affiliated with is notable, but even so notability is not inherited and this specific subject lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced, claims no notability, even the source found by Sckessey is just a passing mention - and even that source says it's a "lesser known distro". Black Kite 10:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an advertisement. The Zwinky (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No substantial media coverage. No claim of notability. No reason why this is any more notable than any other concert tour. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (ie, tour dates) WP:INFO. Save this for the fan sites Nouse4aname (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No substantial media coverage. No claim of notability. No reason why this is any more notable than any other concert tour. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (ie, tour dates) WP:INFO. Save this for the fan sites Nouse4aname (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. With no objection to a sourced recreation. Sandstein 07:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
problematic article. unsourced stub since 2006. Seems to be just a WP:DICDEF Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No substantial media coverage. No claim of notability. No reason why this is any more notable than any other concert tour. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information (ie, tour dates) WP:INFO. Save this for the fan sites Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Mary Kay Letourneau. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Young lad who ejaculated several times between his teacher's willing legs, and later married her, nothing more. RCS (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD was requested by IP, I'm submitting it in good faith for them. tedder (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This "Unity Party of Canada" was never a registered political party with a certifiable level of support during the entirety of its three year existence. Not only that it is highly unlikely that sources will or can be used for the article as the Unity Party was never a serious political party. I do not believe it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. Following the link on the "way back machine" it is obvious that it was nothing more than an online discussion forum, never frequented by more than a dozen users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.55.244 (talk) 07:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC) tedder (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable school. Article appears to lack adequate support, GHits of substance, and has only one news article that is essentially a announcement of a performance by school. ttonyb (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. I've also listed those related articles for the same reason:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kekkomereq4 (talk • contribs) 13 November 2009