< 20 October | 22 October > |
---|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this person or any of his projects are even remotely notable. Completely lacks citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability substantiated by multiple reliable third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this person or any of his projects are even remotely notable. Completely lacks citations to third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate but obvious hoax; the topic has zero pertinent Google hits. I recommend deletion and a block of the author, new user 123fsdfd34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sandstein 22:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Fastily. NAC. Cliff smith talk 06:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:PORNBIO. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary Backslash, WP:PORNBIO states that if the subject "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography..." then he / she is qualified to be recognized. He is starting a trend, he is merging comedy with a young energetic African-American lifestyle while having intercourse. The absurdity of his movies also make them astoundingly unique. Though he hasn't been in the business long enough to be recognized with an award, he has definitely made unique contributions to the hard-core pornographic genre. \ Davisman123 / (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article promoting a UK parliamentary candidate who has not yet held office at any level. Mr Lee is not notable per the policy outlined at WP:POLITICIAN, and does not appear to meet the primary criteria outlined at WP:N. There may also be a conflict of interest - I believe that Majones1987 (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia solely to promote or 'inform people' about Mr Lee. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was RESULT: 00:22, 22 October 2009 Tcncv (talk | contribs) deleted "Will Mobbs" (G3: Vandalism (Hoax)) ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 00:22, 22 October 2009 Tcncv (talk | contribs) deleted "Will Mobbs" (G3: Vandalism (Hoax))[reply]
A 20-year-old actor whose career apparently started when he was 2 years old. Or maybe three years before he was born. Total and utter bollocks from start to finish. Google search returns only Bebo, Facebook, etc -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If you're actually interested in merging, please contact me so I can get the stuff back. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible WP:HOAX. Google searches find no references, [5]. Moustache style guides [6], [7] make no mention of it. This talk page comment by the editor indicates the article is probably a stunt to promote an this advertising campaign. — CactusWriter | needles 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:08, 29 October 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)) . |
Not a really notable MMO website. Certainly not as notable as Hattrick. Has about 13000 active users compared to 1 Million for Hattrick. Comparing it with other MMO sites as well where there has been news and scholarly articles written about them. Writer Listener 20:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why Delete GPRO???? It deserves its spot on Wikipedia!!!! Wikipedia is here to promote things, and share stuff with people right?
Well leave GPRO here, its not hurting anyone now is it!
And how the hell can you compare GPRO to hat trick? or what eva its called.... hattrick is nothing at all like GPRO... Please do not compare to sites what are totaly difrent!!!
And how can you compare a game created 10 years before GPRO? GPRO is 10 years younger then friggen hattrick, so it has atleast 7 more years to catch up!
What does football managment have to do with Formula 1 managment? its pointless this thread
Peterjr-07 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC) — Peterjr-07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Joe ChillI can't find significant coverage for this
Well thats aload of Bull Crap right there Mr Joe Chit, i mean chill
It is has mager advertising on Facebook as well as sevrall other sites
It cames up on top of the second page on good when type "Formula 1 managment games"
Peterjr-07 (talk) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As said this is a ton of bull crap and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryrigg (talk • contribs) 09:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC) And Hattrick you are probably one of the designers. I could easily come and compare GPRO to Hattrick and get Hattrick deleted. But I wont as I have never been arsed to go on to Hattrick!Harryrigg (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)— Harryrigg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comparing a Football game with a racing online game is silly to me.Maybe we don't have so many managers as "Hattrik" does but at least we have a great community.I can easily say one of the best for Online Games.We all know Football is a game loved by everyone but so is Gpro for some.
And is this thread harming anyone??NO
Gpro is the best game ever online for me.Save Gpro (Samoeni Albanalopolis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.123.71.243 (talk) 11:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have semi-protected this debate due to strong evidence of off-site canvassing. ~ mazca talk 12:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to inform you that this article has existed for more than two years so it is not suitable to delete it. Alonso McLaren (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a very good online game and being on wikipedia informs other online game players of it's strengths and uses. It i suseful to have on here so people can also use it as guidelines on how to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackbraz (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being an admin of GPRO, I want to apologize for our very addicted and therefore very dedicated users :) The admins are aware that there is a big lack of articles about GPRO as well as missing awards. The only real and independent article I could find and I cant link to it cos of the anti-spam filter of wikipedia - but I think that is still far to less, right? We will be working in winning an award sooner or later. Therefore we saved the current wiki-article and when we finally got an award or something else, I hope its no problem to put the article up again :) Hmmpft (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability, I can find no sources whatsoever that discuss this book. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician, poorly written, created by a sock of an indef-blocked user. Placed third on Nashville Star but I can't find any secondary sources, only false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY WP:SPAM. Was speedied prod deleted one as spam. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Attention is drawn to WP:COI: people associated with this band, financially or otherwise, should recuse from making substantial edits to this article. They may revert clear cases of vandalism and engage in discussion on the article's talk page. But equally, an alleged conflict of interest on the part of the article creator is not material, in that a COI is not grounds for deletion. Since there is a consensus that the question of notability has been refuted by the competition win and theme song, no basis on which to delete the article remains. This NAC was brought to you by—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Does not appear to meet notability guidelines - appears to have been written by the bands frontman - so possible conflict of interest noq (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I'm the one that added the article because I feel strongly that the band is notable and they are the topic of discussion on many sites and are well known. There are magazines with them, they get airplay on the radio, and they tour with all the other notable artists. I saw an ad on Chordie which had a Wikipedia portion saying that there's no page for Living Syndication yet, which I found odd so I took it upon myself to add it here. I didn't have rights to the media and wanted to make sure that the webmaster for LS would provide those for me (I tried downloading High Res pics from sites but was unsuccessful). In any case, this is not a COI as I do not work for the band at all, nor am I affiliated with them in any way other than the fact that their CD is my changer. I found articles on Wikipedia which reference Living Syndication, which lead me to the conclusion that they should be included on Wikipedia since they are of note. Like many of you, I'm a music fan and I'm technically inclined so the natural thing for me to do when I don't find information on a band that I know is eligible and worthy is to discuss it and/or post it. I've stated references from and including: Their website (for bio info), Newspapers such as the Boston Globe, the Noise (another music magazine) and a book that's being written about Bands (that includes them alongside bands like Aerosmith and Tool). I feel that those are strong enough references. This is my first article and I'm more than willing to learn to make proper edits to be a part of the community, but I'm asking you to show me some leniency in the writing process and just let me know what I can do better to keep my first article. Thank you for your consideration and helpfulness. Pervezt (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here they are according to the points they address:
1) They have articles in MULTIPLE non-trivial published works which I have also added to the page (The Lowell Sun, Times of India, Boston Globe, The Noise).
9) Number 9 states that they should have won or placed in a major music competition. A National Competition put on by AT&T where they won against all the other 1,800 contestants should satisfy this requirement as well.
10) Number 10 on the WP:BAND list states that they would have to have a theme song on a network TV show. They had the theme song for the NBC show, CORR (Championship Off Road Racing). I have even included the Youtube video of the theme song. All three of these satisfy the requirements for being a notable band. I have made edits to the Wiki entry to reflect these additions. I would appreciate a re-consideration of your votes considering the criteria has been met. Thank you for your consideration. Pervezt (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clayton is the backup quarterback for Virginia Tech and the only source found is entitled, "Is Virginia Tech Quarterback Ju-Ju Clayton almost famous? Not yet". Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Giants27(c|s) 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
*Keep As Creater of the article. Only sources found? What about the other three, there is also this and numerous other Articles with his name on them.--SKATER Speak. 18:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)**Yes his name is in that one, however how is that notable? Clayton tries to make first pass a good one, sounds like someone who hasn't accomplished anything in their college career. While the other sources on the article, are VT bios and game notes, which are not third-party sources.--Giants27(c|s) 18:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Giants...This Nomination wouldn't have anything to do with the Giants getting killed the Saints would it ;), nah jk...--SKATER Speak. 23:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:HAMMER. Few details, sources are from fan sites and recording hasn't even started Wolfer68 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Bold redirect Nothing to see here; not sure if it even needs to be deleted despite being made by a sock of a banned user. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. page has been created on 3 April 2008 by Mr. Ambassador, a sockpuppet of Sarsaparilla, although Sarsaparilla is banned since 25 March 2008. page has no substantial edits by other users. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software Strongyards (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete per nom. UltraMagnusspeak 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
>You might point out that most of these mentions are in german. But this doesn't meens that they are unimportant. >"Alpha-State": you're right. Nevertheless updates are published weekly on SourceForge.net. A sign that it's pursued seriously. silentsteps (talk) 20:20 MET, 14 October 2009
The result was No consensus to delete. Whpq's point is cogent, though it may not have been fully understood. Per WP:BEFORE, alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an article is brought here; and since the nominator explicitly stated they would not object to a merge, AfD may not have been the best place for this discussion. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
I am nominating this to save myself from going into an edit warring, there are several reasons why. As I have stated here that because none of those entries are sourced, I will had made a warning that unless all these are sourced, I will merge that list to the general list for WP:VERIFY reason, which is the first reason of this AfD as none of these was sources. I have attempted to point this out on that talk section linked but nobody bothered to make an objection within some said weeks therefore it means I am entitled to merge it. But some user came and recreated it with sources, which brings me to the second reason why for this nom, a large majority of their entries made very little differences to its English counterpart, apart from the language, which brings me to the third reason that Wikipedia is not a translation guide.
On the other hand, I will not object this to merge to the general list as most of these have reliable sources. Donnie Park (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am good-faith submitting this for the IP below. Please see Talk:Superoperator, there is consensus for doubt about this page. Otherwise I have no opinion (and no knowledge). tedder (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now three years old but the page still exists. Yes, this term is used in quantum information literature, but it is used in several different meanings. E.g. I think it is also used in the description of dissipative systems. There it denotes general linear mappings between operators. Imho, not having this page in wp is still better than misleading information. 85.127.20.219 (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argh. Added deletion note, but cannot create the necessary discussion pages. What a shame. If anybody drops by, could he/she please add this (even if you're not convinced)? 85.127.20.219 (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. the majority of the keep arguments are by assertion or dont relate to a policy while the delete side are referring to NPOV, V and RS plus citing issues with inclusion criteria and maintainability. Overall the delete side has the policy based arguments on its side Spartaz Humbug! 02:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much like the List of religious organizations, this is an incomplete and unmaintainable list. I'm not even sure this would be better served by categories as the interpretation of what constitutes a "criminal organization" is debatable. JBsupreme (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the notability here. Being hard to read doesn't hep either. Myspace doesn't count as a reliable source, so it fails there too. Wizardman 16:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Those advocating keeping the article didn't make it clear why it should be kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:36, 28 October 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)) . |
This article is about a neologism coined in a book that was published last year. There is no evidence that this term exists outside of this book or the Munich Business School. The book itself has been spammed recently on Wikipedia, which drew attention to this article. The article was deleted recently via proposed deletion, but was restored after a request from an anonymous IP at deletion review who claimed, "Futher studies at the Munich Business School have showed that this strategy gets actually used by 15 per cent of Small and Medium sized businesses as a market entry strategy." Delete this article, and the related article Sprinkler strategy as attempts to market a non-notable book.
I am also nominating the following related article as stated above:
Hi Atama, yes I have heard of that study as well. However the Wave Strategy is quite important. Since I would guess that it is even more than 15% that actually use this strategy when they go abroad. They often simply don't know the name. I am teaching international business at the FOM University in Hamburg, Germany and I was mainly working on this article to improve some internationalisation strategies on Wikipedia. I have students working on different papers and most of them should include the wave strategy at some point. Well, this is my oppinion. I am not very well in programming on Wikipedia, thus my articles might need some cleanup and I am sorry for that. But I am only making contributions where I really think that they should be included on Wikipedia. I would hate to see this article beeing deleted. — comment added by Raid008 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh and I jsut saw that the book "Market Entry Strategies" by C. Lymbersky is on the spam list. I am afraid that is my fault as well. I am was probably a bit to entusiastig about putting references on some articles. Due to my work i am used to referencing every statement that i make. I will deliete a couple of these references and put others in stead. It is not my intention to promote any certain book, even though i think this particular one is very good, but I will put others instead thus it should not be misunderstood in the future. Could you remove that book from the spam list. the same with the article "sprincler strategy" this is really very whidly used timeing strategy in international business together with the waterfall strategy Thanks Atama. Cheers, Raid008 — comment added by Raid008 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-> added: 13:28 22 October 2009: I have added two more references to the wave strategy, one from the Government of Dubai proposing the wave strategy in their "Guide to Export" and an other one from the York University. I am sure there can be more, but hey, this should be enough now. @Raid008: If you could add some more references to the Sprinkler Strategy this deletion thing should be off the table. Especially since we have now established that this article is not about advertising a book or something. I also took the name C. Lymbersky out of the article, that there wont be any confusion in the future. BredMiller
The University of Adelaide, Australia teaches the Market Entry Strategy as well. I am 100 per cent sure that this gets tought in pretty much every class that teaches market entry strategies. Somebody who knows Market Entry strategies form uni, also know the Wave Strategy and the Sprinkler Strategy. I also added an other link to where the Wave Strategy is suggested by Global Equations in their Annual Magazin. Ending up with about 7 references, that should do it. ;) Chris008 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) An other link for the Sprinkler Strategy: http://www.rainerbusch.de/mo_13_imstrategies.htm#Timing Strategies[reply]
The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was a news event, not an encyclopedic topic. Damiens.rf 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by forwardslash backslash citing this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive detail for the results of a domestic football season, thus a violation of WP:NOT#IINFO. Content is sufficiently avaiable at 2009 NSW Premier League season. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Aardman Animations. Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is a non-notable and long out-of-print DVD, and most of the films featured on it do not have entries of their own because they are so obscure and it doesn't look like anybody will ever come along and create them because of this fact. In addition, the article was created by now indefinitely-blocked User:I Hate That Small Claymation Sheep, who was exposed as a sock puppet of banned User:I Hate That Fat Claymation Sheep in violation of his ban two months ago. Skcusnoitaredefgniltserwbmuht (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure)--Krazycev 13 other crap 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My speedy deletion was declined, so I bring it here. I believe that Agraceful do not meet notability. Opinions?--Krazycev 13 20:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How don't they meet notability? 1)They've played with some of the biggest bands in their genres and been on some pretty huge tours 2) here is another source 3)They have been played continually on Radiou 4)They have over 2 million views on myspace, and 34,000 friends (not a real way to classify notability, but still...) GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an audio stream from RadioU with Chris being interviewed. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is no copyright violation, even if there was a copy and paste from last.fm, as that website can be edited by anyone. If you look at both sources currently on the article, you will see that they provide ample information to back up the current configuration of the article. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why everyone is saying delete, I provided the proof of notablility per WP:Band. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The station plays many places in besides Columbus, Ohio. If you actually look on the RadioU website which I previous provided, you will see that there are stations in all of Central Ohio, Miami Valley, Central Coast, Seattle, Okalahoma City, and broadcasted on SkyAngel nationally in the form of TVU (which Agraceful's music video has appeared on). GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I personally believe that Gaudium is right. I was overlooking a few factors. RadioU is in several areas, as he stated. If possible, I think this AfD should be withdrawen. I realize my nomination mistake.--Krazycev 13 other crap 21:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see how this article is notable enough to have its own page, it should be deleted or at the very least merged with the main event by month page; i.e. April 2005
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same WP:N reason:
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources found, despite an effort at WT:PHARM#Monoclonal antibodies revisited. The discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive171#Mass of hoax biology stubs gives a source, but that is broken. Furthermore, there is no content: All the information in the article can be derived from the drug's name or from the article about biciromab. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Humanx Commonwealth. Spartaz Humbug! 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MuZemike 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is promotional in nature, company is just a startup and lacks notability. Eeekster (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO they are notable competitor. They are present in 3 cities, groupon in 10. Group buying is a new category, quite interesting to follow. Would love to see more companies added.
Multiple external media . Please review
Did you actually see the video on Youtube? It is from a news channel in washigton. . Pedro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro.tudela (talk • contribs) 09:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
College basketball player: falls well short of inclusion standard at WP:ATHLETE. Speedy deletion tag removed, but IMO clearly a speedy candidate. I42 (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The delete arguments are far more convincing in this debate. Kevin (talk) 05:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. Certainly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Rd232 talk 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MuZemike 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't satisfy WP:ATHLETE, as she only has competed in WWE's farm team, Florida Championship Wrestling. Doesn't have any third party sources to help establish notability. Nikki♥311 20:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rd232 talk 18:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN.
COMMENT: There are numerous newspaper accounts, most notably in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2005, about Kenneth Hodges' abuse of his office and unethical conduct, including his using grand jury subpoenas issued on behalf of local campaign contributors when there was no grand jury in session to obtain telephone records, which he turned over to the contributors in exchange for several thousand dollars. There is currently a federal lawsuit against Mr. Hodges in which United States District Judge Louis Sands has denied Mr. Hodge's claims of immunity and the matter will be going forward for trial. The case number is 1:07-CV-22 (WLS) and the order denying the motion was issued March 31, 2009. Judge Sands' order recounts the abuse of the grand jury and the payment of funds to Mr. Hodges' chief investigator, who was acting on Mr. Hodges' direct orders. Here's an excerpt from the order:
"Upon receipt of the subpoenaed records, Defendant Paulk provided the records, including Plaintiff’s personal e-mails, to private civilians,
Case 1:07-cv-00022-WLS Document 34 Filed 03/31/2009 Page 2 of 24 3 who in turn paid for the information. The subpoenas were never intended to require an appearance before the Grand Jury on any matter pending before a Grand Jury, but were intended to obtain confidential and private records for private civilians." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.105 (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: The following entry from Mr. Hodge's Wikipedia entry is demonstrably false:
"Phoebe Putney
In 2004, the emergency rooms and operation rooms of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital (“Phoebe”) were being inundated with faxes sent from an anonymous source. The faxes repeatedly targeted board members of Phoebe, disclosing their names and contact information.[13] Ken Hodges was the District Attorney in Dougherty County, GA at the time of the incident and he responded by subpoenaing the phone records in accordance with Section 16-11-39.1 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated."
The Code Section he cited relates to harassing phone calls, which require repeated annoying phone calls to a human being- not faxes sent to a hospital fax machine or to a Congressman's fax machine. That's one of many reasons why the criminal prosecution which Mr. Hodges initiated was dismissed prior to trial- the indictment didn't actually charge any conduct which constituted crimes in Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.217.212.105 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The topic in general might be notable as defined by WP:N, but this is in no way an acceptable encyclopedic article as it (fundamentally) violates such basic content policies and guidelines as WP:OR. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fascinating essay and I've already taken the liberty of saving a copy (with the history) for future reference. It makes a lot of very valid points. However, it is ultimately an essay. And the topic by nature cannot help be both original research and an essay. Almost everyone who is accused of antisemitism denies the accusations. Deciding which are valid and which are not is fraught with difficulty. Useful analogies would occur to the hypothetical articles on similar topics such as Misuse of accusations of homopobia and the like. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How is this article different from the article Israel and the apartheid analogy? Both deal with a controversial political issue that has been raised in books and articles. Both articles are basically a list of _examples_ of notable people making a political point. The Israel and the apartheid analogy article is a long list of people, books, and articles that say "The situation in Israel bears some resemblance to Aparthied". This article is a list of people, books, and articles that say "The antisemitism accusation is used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism". What is the distinction? My point is: This is an encyclopedia, and it should be capturing key topics of note, even if they are uncomfortable or controversial. Censorship is not healthy. --Noleander (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would ask that commentors be a little more rigorous and precise in their comments. Simply saying "OR, POV, SYNTH" is no different than saying "I dont like it". Every article is a synthesis of something. For example, take a look at Antisemitism #Middle East. That section is very, very poor. A non-notable list of events, without any notable cite that even claims they are antisemitic. Yet, are any of the above editors cleaning up that section? Bear in mind that is the top level article of a Category that contains 400 articles! That section, of course, is negative towards muslims, and has stood un-edited, un-challenged for who knows how long, so it gives the appearance - to me, at least - of a double standard. --Noleander (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy This is an essay, not a wikipedia entry. But it is a pretty darn good essay. Simonm223 (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MuZemike 17:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MuZemike 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fictional planet, no source is given. JL 09 q?c 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. No secondary coverage or any other sort of evidence of notability. Fails WP:N and should therefore be deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. More recent additions to the page seem to establish sufficient notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found this article about this band. The article asserts "chart topping", but I see nothing in Google in the way of anything reliable to that effect. Mostly blogs and WP articles are turning up in a Google search. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Originally PRODded with the rationale "Youth team playing in non-notable league", dePRODded by article creator with edit summary "More detail added, including further citations to the league and FA awards. Crookham Rovers is the biggest boys club in the area and is approaching 40 years in age. It is also a registered Charity", however I don't feel that any of that conveys notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. MuZemike 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not assert , much less establish, any notability other than being "a Christian leader". Leader of... what? The only references are mentions in "Who's Who" publications, alumni magazines, YouTube, and other self-published sources. :Ἀλήθεια 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be merely an inconsequential commercial product. Tag for sources was deleted by creating editor, and links attached to advertising material. No RS Bluehotel (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a legitimate specialised car modification installed in a multitude of cars worlwide the fact that Bluehotel doesn't care for the author does not justify an AfD. Furthermore it is neutrally sourced as the references illustrate. --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 14:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added references to Mazda and Porsche both offering this component as stock and as an option further dispelling the notion of lack of notability--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete in order to move Kirtichakra to here. As near as I can tell, the spaced title is the main spelling. If notability concerns remain (unlikely), feel free to renominate. ThaddeusB (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This is not actually the second nomination, I previously attempted to nominate the article via Twinkle but it failed. HJMitchell You rang? 12:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Film does not appear to be notable. A google search throws up no reliable sources, thus the information currently in the article cannot be verified or corroborated, never mind expanded beyond 2 sentences. HJMitchell You rang? 12:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD A7, no assertion of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable organization, per WP:ORG. Google searching does not produce the required references per WP:RS. However, a Google search confirms that the article's creator is also the chairman and founder of the organization. Warrah (talk) 12:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Twinkle fail. Tim Song (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever. A company established two months ago. Zero Gnews hit. Only Ghit of English name is WP. Lithuanian name has 7 Ghits in total, and no reliable source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Tim Song (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Skomorokh, barbarian 17:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Appears to be a non-notable organization; I cannot find independent reliable sources to show notability. Chzz ► 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arguments for keeping this page are astoundingly weak. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable claim of notability. 142,995th on Alexa. Haakon (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments for deletion seem to prevail over the arguments for retention in this case. MuZemike 15:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this game has not received any coverage from reliable publications, so is unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion. In fact, independent verification is an issue too. Marasmusine (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(at this point an online article of GameStar and the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza have been added as sources)
The result was keep. Discussion to redirect/merge should continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
contested prod, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of a politician, spamming, dubious notability, previously removed from Chinese wiki[33][34] --Ice Sea (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. No citations or references in the article. I'm not finding any material on-line where this group is the topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 07:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is supposedly about a "force" from Hawaiian mythology. The original author changed this to "unknown mythology", which is essentially useless. It currently has a footnote stating "more possibly related to Māori"; however, it clearly cannot possibly be from any Polynesian language since none can have a "kw" letter combination. No references are cited, despite the claim that it is "Definitely an existing island myth". A Google search turned up no mythology-related hits on either "Rokwai" or the alternative "Rogwai". This has the appearance of either a hoax (by or on the author, I don't know), or something heard third-hand that is not real as it stands in the article (wrong name, wrong region etc.). KarlM (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. NW (Talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another hoax on the face of it, there's little in the way of reality here as other related articles don't mention it in their history. Outside of hoaxery, there's not much of an article here, no sourcing and barely any content. treelo radda 09:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected by the nominator, which is effectively the same as "nomination withdrawn" with no other delete !votes. Closing the AfD accordingly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Article already exists by another name Samrat Hem Chandra Vikramaditya with more information and citations. TheBigA (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Commitment. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced vague WP:DICDEF. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Hoax NW (Talk) 21:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a fairly elaborate and convoluted hoax, for a show which has been ongoing since 1994 there is next to nothing regarding it anywhere. There's no sourcing and seeing as the two inline links posing as sources don't exist it doesn't really encourage me to believe this is a work of anything but pure fiction. treelo radda 09:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear-cut failure of WP:BIO and WP:N. This person obviously is not the subject of reliable third-party references to scrape her past the bare minimum required by relevant policies and guidelines. PROD removed, so by all means let's spend another week debating her lack of notability. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO DON'T Shii (tock) 06:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. We need to achieve a consensus here. Clearly, Wikipedia is not a news site, and this article fails WP:NOTNEWS. JBsupreme (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This has been through an AFD and a DRV in less than a week. Not enough time has passed for us to be able to gauge consensus, so we should close this and reopen in a few months. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - I suggest some of those who say "all it takes is a bit of work" actually work on it ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article purports to be a list of religious organizations. It is actually a very short and very incomplete list which mixes together denominations, organizations associated with religious denominations, organizations which have something to do with religion but are not associated with specific denominations, organizations which are not even clearly religious, and at least one parody religion which has no actual organization. The list is a bare alphabetical list with no classification used, no explanation of the criteria for inclusion, and no added information provided about the entries. As I said the last time this came up for AfD, I can't envision the existing article serving as the basis for a better article; if someone wanted to write a better article they would be better off starting from scratch than using this list. During the previous AfD, which closed as "no consensus", it was suggested that the article should be improved rather than deleted. However, in the almost four months since the last AfD, the article has received no edits other than my own edits today. I recommend that this article be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material. Article also salted to prevent recreation. MuZemike 06:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod by what looks like an in-experienced user who suggested a WP:POINT violation should this page be deleted. That aside, the original prod reasoning is as follows: The sources are not reliable sources, but are part where the main person of the article has influence over the content. Blogs do not count as reliable source nor do radio interview the main person hosts (self-published). This article has no reliable secondary sources nor does it comply with the WP:BIO standards. Please discuss. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and fancruft, no citation since first nomination —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable starlet. Orange Mike | Talk 03:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. At a first glance this seems like an obvious "no consensus" or even perhaps a "keep". Many editors who took part in the discussion submit that the article is adequately notable and that the article is of sufficient interest to justify keeping it around. However, such arguments are quite often unsubstantiated. Indeed, many keep votes consist of essentially "It is notable" without any sort of explanation or reasoning. This is not always the case granted, so with a hint of reluctance, I conclude that consensus endorses the nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 28 October 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)) . |
Recentism in the first sense—established articles that are bloated with event-specific facts at the expense of longstanding content—is usually considered one of Wikipedia's faults. But in many cases, the recentist content can be a valuable preliminary stage in gathering information. Any encyclopedia, even Britannica, goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are published while in draft and developed/improved in real time, so rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts. Later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be and often is eliminated.---WP:RECENTISM
↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 12:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Policy relating to fancruft. As with most of the issues of What Wikipedia is not in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects. It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unwikified, unreferenced, non-neutral and contain original research, the latter two of which are valid reasons for deletion. Such articles may also fall into some of the classes of entries judged to be "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. ¶ Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research.---WP:FANCRUFT
Cheers, Cirt (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.
Plus one comment (last one, promise): I've always been curious, When "merge" discussions are merely templated with "Merge to"/"Merge from" tags, the resulting discussions attract maybe a half-dozen commenters, but when someone who favors a merger instead starts an AfD, a score or more folks show up to debate the issue, why is that? I think it's cos the AfD page is more sexy somehow than Wikipedia's list of contemplated mergers.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia is not divided into a macropædia, micropædia, and concise versions as is the Encyclopædia Britannica — we must serve all three user types in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;
- many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section),
- others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and
- some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles). ¶ The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects.
Showtime2009, could you do the closing admin a favor and tag, as such, the "pile-on of SPAs," who you have discovered to be editing the article and/or !voting in this AfD?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]"An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content while adding more balanced content cited from reliable sources. In extreme cases, when notability is borderline, and there is little chance the article can be salvaged, deletion of the entire article may be appropriate."
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is a well written article about an English word, the Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is on the subject of potato which the Wikipedia already has an article on, and an incident involving Dan Quayle whose article covers the incident quite well. The article cannot reasonably be changed to give an encyclopedic entry, since the topic is a word. The Wikipedia is not about the usage of words either, except in the most general sense (the Wikipedia correctly covers topics like prefix, but tries to cover it for a whole class of words, and ideally does so for all languages, whereas potato is simply and only an English word that is already covered in Wiktionary). In general Encyclopedia articles should be translateable, but because this is scoped to be only on an English word, it is not easily translated.
The lexical companion already has the information on this word, and any more information should be placed there, in the more appropriate place. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not simply about the meaning or usage of single words. Given that the potato article itself exists, the article should be deleted. Given the scope of the article, this article cannot be saved.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“ | "Potatoe" is an archaic spelling of the word potato. The Oxford English Dictionary lists potatoe as a variant form, the most recent usage cited being from 1880: "She found the parson in his garden..making a potatoe pie for the winter." However, in modern English it is considered a misspelling, since although the English plural, potatoes, is spelled with an "e", the singular is not, and no dictionary considers potatoe to be an acceptable modern spelling | ” |
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 23:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a non-notable waste management company operating in Houston, Texas. It does not meet WP:CORP. Warrah (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable animal. It received only transient news coverage in Canada as a rescued animal, but then the animal died within a year and the subject died with it. WP:NOTNEWS. Postdlf (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find evidence of Notability. Everything I find via Google is a Facebook page or a listing or a poem posted to a blog by someone else or a self-publishing site, and many of these pages contain a reference to someone named Jat, which is also the name of this article's author. Possibly promotional? Also, regarding the remark, "His poems have appeared in many internet based Punjabi magazines, forums including Punjabi.net, Punjabilok.net, sadapunjab.com, and many others": the first has no hits for his name using its own search feature; the second doesn't exist; and I don't see any way to find any reference to him or any poetry at all on this site. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If a merge is still desired, it can be discussed outside AFD. Otherwise, no other arguments for deletion and strong arguments for retention prevail. MuZemike 16:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No claims of notability. No real world information. Everything is original research. Its pretty much just a page listing every time he makes an appearance on the show. Coasttocoast (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 07:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party evidence of notability for this publication. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Batman Beyond unless someone wishes to create a separate list on the characters. MuZemike 15:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all of these articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as they are nothing but in-universe plot summaries. There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that attest to the separate notability of the characters, several of whom appeared no more than twice or three times. Fails WP:FICT as it currently exists. Eddie's Teddy (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Matt McGinnis with the Terry McGinnnis page.
The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 23:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though having being charted may qualify, does that mean charted as high as "472" qualifies for WP:MUSIC. My nomination based on the line at the end of the introduction line: "failed to enter the UK charts".
I recommend merging those listed below to the Clea (band) article for the same reason above:
Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears more or less with the same content in several wikis - it has no sources and all (but the en/simple articles) have been created by the same IP-user. In sv-wiki a user of the same name as this article is registered and this user and the IP-user have not been editing any articles but the Wadih Saadeh-article. It is probably an autobiography. Amjaabc (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arab League User (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would nominate this for ((db-repost)) but I don't know if the article is similar. A previous biography on this individual was deleted per a deletion discussion.
The current article cites nothing approaching "significant coverage" of the subject, and several of the references don't even mention his name. Bongomatic 01:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Darwin Football Association. Skomorokh, barbarian 09:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is inaccurate and does not have enough information to identify the subject. Btilm 01:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Not notable. noq (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]