The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promo for non-notable film project still in production. Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of games containing time travel . Clearly redundant to each other, and the other list is the better article. Black Kite 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a "Category:Time travel video games" already exists. Also, there's a "List of games containing time travel" with similar content Garethfc (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Completely and utterly NN software product, egads. JBsupreme (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per the BLP1E argument. Shame on the person who alleged homophobia. -- Y not? 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Helen Goddard is a British music teacher who had an affair with a female pupil aged 15, and was recently convicted and sentenced to 15 months in jail. This is not really a biography of her, but rather a coatrack to report her conviction.
A small piece has already been included about her conviction in the article about her school, City of London School for Girls.
Helen Goddard is only known for this one event, and we have a policy, WP:BLP1E, for this kind of case, which generally excludes biographies about such people. We have a guideline on those who commit criminal acts, i.e. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators, and I believe that this article fails the criteria set out there.
A teacher having sex with an underage pupil is not rare,[1][2][3] so I would argue against reworking the article into Conviction of Helen Goddard or similar. The burst of news reports about this case has been fuelled by it being a lesbian affair, and Helen Goddard being blonde and photogenic, rather than any serious lasting significance of the case. Fences&Windows 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was A9 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this album. The only review cited is on a student newspaper, and I can find no additional articles on this album at all. The band's article was recently deleted at AfD due to notability concerns (see here). Speedy was declined citing the said review. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor league player, does not seem to meet WP:ATHLETE NeilN talk ♦ contribs 22:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. After contested prod, three sources were added:
This software is not notable, per WP:N. Period. Miami33139 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have 3rd-party add-on capabilities, skinning, PDA versions, Smartphones, Windows platform and, a skin designing program. I have to say that this is pretty deep seated and a well set up program (after testing it) and is notable. Perhaps not notable to the American public but is notable to the Russian public (after all, it is hosted on a Russian site.) I say keep after some edits pointing to the information for the site. However I think it should be moved and translated to the Russian side of Wikipedia --Apb91781 (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC) — Apb91781 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was keep. If she was non-notable before, she's not suddenly notable because of her death. However, although there was little wrong with the first AfD - the article at that point contained very little claim to notability - the improved article does, even without the additional coverage related to her death. Black Kite 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted without objection for failure to meet the GNG and relevant specific notability guidelines. After the article was deleted, the subject was killed in a domestic violence incident. Being a victim of domestic violence does not confer notability, and no other new information has been added to indicate the subject might be otherwise notable. WP:NOTNEWS clearly controls. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stextc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (although a name change, such as "Claims to be the..." might be appropriate Black Kite 07:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this topic isn't encyclopedic. It's trivial. The article itself is horrible and lacks needed references, and is effectively impossible to reference due to varying definitions of 'village', 'town' and 'largest'. The article can't realistically be repaired, and it's trivial, so it should be deleted. Computerjoe's talk 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete -- Y not? 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neologism; in my opinion a clumsy and pedantic one, but those of course are not grounds for deletion. What is grounds for deletion is lack of verifiability that the term is actually in widespread enough use to satisfy WP:NEO. Clicking on the "Findsources" links above will show no mention at all in News, or Books, or Scholar. The article cites three textbooks; I have only been able to check one of those (Fundamentals of Physics), but the term was not mentioned. The edition I checked was older than the one cited, but I also checked, without result, all the more modern physics textbooks in the same section of the University library where I found it.
Most of the few ordinary Ghits are Urban Dictionary, where the word has been since 2005, or WP mirrors. The others include an undated entry in a blog here linking to Urban Dictionary and urging people to "start instituting the use of this word"; the article may be part of this campaign but, with no mention in Google Books or Google Scholar, it does not seem the campaign has got far. Urban Dictionary is not a convincing source; it is significant that Wiktionary, which requires solid attestation, does not have the word. Conclusion: delete per WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" - there is not enough evidence that this word is in use, and it is not our business to help promote it. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At first glance, this appears to be a collection of naming lists for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons. But a deeper look reveals the sentence, "the names Ana, Brian, Claudette, Danny, Erika, and Fred were used for the first time." Not only is this incorrect (except for Brian, which isn't even on any of the lists, and Fred, which really was used for the first time this year, all of these names have been in rotation for many years), but it also suggests that the article's creator was attempting to submit fictional tropical cyclones to Wikipedia; see here for a precedent. The utilization of fictional tropical cyclones in Wikipedia articles is accompanied by a high risk of readers believing that the information is real. As such, to prevent falsehood, I nominate this article for deletion. Dylan620 (contribs, logs)help us! 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not backed by any sources, and Google searches don't produce much apart from one book. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Little better than an advert for a proposed encryption algorithm. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is WP:PN. Tangurena (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography. Is he notable? Sgroupace (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to redirect Franz Mesmer. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any search results on it, so it might be hoax. What do you think? ZooFari 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find anything on Google (besides his Facebook and Blogspot pages) to show subject meets WP:BIO. NeilN talk ♦ contribs 19:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these players seem to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The Albanian Superliga isn't fully professional. Also including:
The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable youth player. PROD removed for no reason.
A similar artice which I'm also including is this one:
Spiderone 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Korea National League is only semi-pro and neither article seems to pass WP:GNG.
With:
The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This brings up the question of notability: Does WP need an article on every youth sports league in every county of the US/and other places in the world? (Obviously some that go to the finals will be notable) The article is already listed here: Sport in Milton Keynes#Football. This article should be redirected there. BrianY (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local street. No clear significance of the street established, and no sources whatsoever provided. A bulk of the article also appears to be original research. Article was deprodded by creator and does not fit a CSD criterion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - withdrawn by nominator OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure if subject meets WP:WEB OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. NW (Talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This episode doesn't establish notability. The plot is adequately covered within the episode list and there is little chance for actual expansion. TTN (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MuZemike 17:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:Music, states itself as a supergroup but does not give any indication of why the two members are notable. Sources are mostly vendors. SKATER Speak. 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person apparently served in the British army in the 1850s and commanded various detachments, and was notable for defeating a party of rebels at Tudhoorkee. But, it that really notable? I don't think WP has a place for an article about every single lieutenant who defeated someone in a war (say World War Two, or Iraq, or whatever) There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of sources for Osborn. The second part about him being a serious thinker on both religious and political topics is opinionated: "They are models of graceful treatment of a perplexing subject" BrianY (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only claim to notability here is unsourced and highly dubious ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, G11. Normally, this would have been a borderline case, but the fact that the author's username matches the article name pushed it over the line. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to meet WP:WEB - nothing in Google/News to indicate notability. Leuko Talk/Contribs 16:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you will find Google provides various sources about Alter The Press. See Google search results.
I think deletion of the article is VERY wrong and unjustified. AlterThePress.com is well-known and notable music website, that deserves to be on Wikipedia. I believe these are valid reasons for keeping the article on Wikipedia.Alter The Press! (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion G3 as a blatant hoax. The creating editor has created 11 total articles about this unreferenced series. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find a CSD criteria that this article met, so I'm bringing it here. Appears to be an American television show, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding any context or anything that would tell me what the heck it is! Frmatt (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further research and wiki-searching, have found that this may be part of an elaborate hoax based on Under One Roof (Series), and have nominated it and all of its associated pages under CSD G3. Frmatt (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by author with no improvement. Upcoming movie with no evidence of starting principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. Tassedethe (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently unverifiable. The Anome (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A variety of impressive claims are on offer here, but I see no way to source them -- news results for Ahmed Seddik are not many and mainly to other people, and there is virtually nothing in Gscholar. Perhaps sources are available in Arabic -- if so, great. But I don't think we want an article like this that has virtually no prospect of being sourced properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tone 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by a WP:PNT regular who admitted his lack of knowlegeability. The article states that this player was on the HC Dynamo Moscow roster, but actually, according to the few news sources available, he was on that team's junior roster. He was drafted by the Montreal Canadiens (4th round), but will play instead for the Quebec Remparts. Delete with no prejudice against recration once he graduates with the big team, or becomes a star in his new junior team. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article to suggest that this musician meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. So far all it asserts is that this guy has worked with a string of notable musicians. This in itself is not evidence of notability. All the article's references do is show that the "has worked with" list is correct, although many of the refs are not from what would usually be reliable sources. My prod was removed by an IP who made no attempt to demonstrate the required notability. I don't really care whether the article is deleted or not, but with any luck this AfD will force someone to either prove the notability or at least make an attempt to improve this trainwreck of a musician stub. WebHamster 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MuZemike 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody put this up for speedy, but I don't think it qualifies. I am not sure, however, if Birmingham Archeology meet WP:N or WP:GROUP. I removed the CSD template and the associated hang-on template. I put it up for this AfD discussion without any clear opinion myself on whether or not it should be deleted. I just think it needs to be discussed. The group was involved in retrieving the Staffordshire Hoard, which may just be enough to fullfil notability criteria, as this discovery could go beyond the one-event rule, which I suppose only applies to WP:BLPs anyway. So let's get the ball rolling on discussion. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: renamed to Moonie (Unification Church).
Wikipedia can not have an article on every word. This article has no secondary sources, beyond dictionaries, which discuss the word in depth. This is in marked contrast to our article on the "N-word". Borock (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE as a non-notable software product which lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. I'm beginning to worry we are lending WP:BIAS to these types of software applications on Wikipedia, but hopefully not in this one instance. JBsupreme (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete the article. There is no clear consensus between keeping this as a separate article and redirecting, but that is matter for the normal editing process. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is really about instances of the words "special" and "creation" being found next to each other. There is no consistant meaning for this expression since it is used in various ways, as the article explains. Borock (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Keep This phrase is distinguished from creationism and has particular meaning.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JForget 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a minor racing strategy used in NASCAR racing. At best it should be a small section on the main article. Frmatt (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New artist article with no signs of notability or reliable sources... CSD tag was removed by new editor (not author), without discussion... fails WP:MUSICBIO... Adolphus79 (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (both the redirect and article on his death). No one other then the editor who moved the article proposed to keep it. JForget 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This purported biography contains very little actual biographical information, and a lot on information on her unfortunate death. In my opinion, this article fails WP:BIO in that the published coverage is about the disappearance, rather than Stempien herself.
As to whether the article could be moved to an event based article is another debate, but my feeling is that there is nothing particularly outstanding that would warrant an article on the disappearance. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved to Death of Lana Stempien --Cyclopia - talk 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attack on the topic of the book, there are plenty of credible sources that suggest vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle choice and it may very well be more healthy than a diet containing a small quantity of meat. With that being said there is no indication that this particular book on the subject is at all notable. The entire article is derived from a primary source; there isn't a single review of the book, not a single newspaper article about it. As a result it doesn't appear to meet the criteria for WP:BOOK and should probably be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: chronically unsourced stub, created ("just off the top of my head" and thus explicit WP:OR) with a built-in ((merge)) tag. Recently-added sole source, to John Beardsley's Biblical Discernment Ministries, is blatantly unreliable WP:SELFPUB. ((find)) reveals almost nothing on the phrase's use as a term of art representing a theological concept (and none of it "significant coverage") rather than a simple adjective-noun combination (i.e. 'First Advent' rather than 'first advent'). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs work, but will lead to a good article - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP; fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO without additional sources being provided. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete G3, due to possible BLP issues and the fact this seems to be a hoax. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has no sources and probably contains libelous statements in relation to real people. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. JForget 23:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography of non-notable company... article discussing a number of things that are going to happen in the future, but nothing that has happened yet... other articles created by author are of non-notable clients of this company... fails WP:CORP... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to The Chariot (band). Ikip (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While The Chariot is notable and easily verifiable (as are the main studio albums), this demo is not mentioned anywhere, was never formally released, and has no reviews. Good luck finding evidence to keep it. -- Noj r (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. — Jake Wartenberg 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear notable; indeed, it seems like nothing more than a robot designed by a university/school robotics class. A few mentions in local media as may be expected when university students do something "interesting" (for lack of a better word), but nothing that appears to satisfy significant coverage in WP:RS that would be indicative of notability. Also apparent WP:COI. Contested PROD. --Kinu t/c 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No indication of WP:NOTABILITY in text as it currently stands. No references either, possible vanity page. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 12:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]