The result was Copyvio of http://www.asapsports.com/about.php -- JLaTondre 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a blatant advert from a newly registered account Sennen goroshi 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was all articles deleted. ¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper who fails WP:MUSIC. Associated with hit-makers but he hasn't achieved that status yet. One non-hit album with a group and a solo album that may or may not be released later this year. Also nominating a non-notable song by the same artist, and 2 redirect pages. Precious Roy 00:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this page with a friend in the room and he immediately shouted that he had heard of Big Kuntry King. Apparently he has enough notoriety to be recognized and henceforth would deserve an entry, however brief...Themodelcitizen 02:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommended deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Mall does not appear to be notable, it is under construction and has no tenants. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 23:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited three articles from the St. Petersburg Times regarding the status and prominence of this mall. There is no reason this should be deleted. If you delete this article, delete every other article about malls along with it. Thank you.Blaze33541 23:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus possible due to multi-nomination. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No claim to notability has been established. Just another international school in another foreign country. Luke! 23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all international schools in Hong Kong with no assertion to notability.
The result was keep. John254 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former college football player, only reached the semi-proffesional leagues, fail WP:BIO Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable subject engaging in self-promotion. I didn't see a cite from the Globe and Mail, and the other refs aren't third-party sources. He's not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs – there's no comparison except all three are male. KrakatoaKatie 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
procedural nomination This was previously considered at AFD Jan-Feb 2007 (User:The Epopt) and was nominated for WP:PROD-based deletion in Aug 2007 (User:Hu12). The new nomination was accompanied with the reason for deletion "Self-promotion, Spam, NN". The old nomination was originally a speedy deletion candidate; it was taken to AFD with the reason for deletion "This short bio reads like a résumé or perhaps spam." The outcome of the AFD was 'no consensus'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~ While I started this article a while back there have been a lot of contributions (revisions and reverts) since then. The bio was made shorter due not wanting to repeat what could be found in the cited articles. Looking at a page like that of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, however, it would seem that the repetition of information is accepted for bios. If this is correct, then the page could conform to a "Jobs/Gates" format prior to deletion. Or am I missing the point of bios? This is my first one so it's possible. Thanks for any input you can provide! Maltiti2005 04:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep due to all votes (except the nom) have been keep. Non-admin closure.--JForget 23:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former college football player, never reached NFL and only training camp in the CFL, fails WP:BIO and no Reliable, independent sources, prod removed Delete Jaranda wat's sup 23:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom Keep per JodyB Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct student magazine thar never achieved any notability and with no sources fails WP:V. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:15, 26 August 2007 (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)) . |
The result was Keep - Non-admin closure. :: maelgwn - talk 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct student newspaper that never achieved any notability. Fails WP:V due to lack of sources. Delete view. Bridgeplayer 23:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 23:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research about a subject which is not encyclopedic. —tregoweth (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as indiscriminant collection of information. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, aging list of Gateway products. Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipeidia isn't an advertising medium. Mikeblas 22:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator). Melsaran (talk) 10:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Album does not appear to be the subject of any significant independent coverage, and article is essentially a track list. Under those cirucmstances, WP:MUSIC, while vague, suggests that the album may be non-notable. MastCell Talk 22:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of characters in the Harry Potter books#Owls. MastCell Talk 23:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though certine things in the Harry Potter books do deserve their own articles, this dosent, the character dosent play a "Major" role in the books at all and there is hardly any information. I think the information that is coved in the Ron Weasley article clearly covers this topic as well. **Ko2007** 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 23:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think with such phrases as "Record of the Day is also acknowledged for unearthing unheard artists and bands through their daily audio feature" and "The Record of the Day online message board that accompanies the magazine online has achieved cult status" this page would have references. Or that I could find reliable sources via a google search. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 22:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rap group. Has been tag for "this article may not satisfy the notability guideline" since Feb 2007. No references either. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 22:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect & Merge. This doesn't seem to be developing and is otherwise a dicdef with no real life sourced cited. We already have this at the list of blogging terms so a redirect and merge (help yourselves) seems the sensible course for a permanent semi-stub. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DICT and WP:NEO. The result of the debate nearly two years ago was Keep, but the page has improved little if any since then. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: evidence of significant coverage in multiple third-party reliable sources has been provided (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dylan_Howard#H), satisfying Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Additionally, most established users commenting after evidence of such coverage was provided at this AFD have favored retention of the article; the nominator has withdrawn the nomination [6]. John254 14:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this does not meet WP:NN. Brusegadi 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Seven News. Notability of sportscasters is highly subjective. Cary Bass demandez 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. His name is currently splashed all over the news in relation to a recent story in which he published the confidential medical records of two AFL players who have twice tested positive to recreational drugs. This is alleged by some to be a major breach of journalistic code of practice and ethics, and has resulted in an injunction against further publication, and a major rift between the AFLPA and Channel Seven, including threats of AFL players boycotting the Brownlow Medal. In short, this guy has both created, and himself become the subject of, back page news in Australia all this week. Surely that's notable enough. [8][9][10][11][12] Hesperian 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical article with unsupported assertion of notability. previous Speedy nom failed as there is an assertion of notability. Delete as fails WP:BIO in general and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) in particular. Springnuts 21:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Insufficient independant sources to meet WP:MUSIC. No objection to recreation as and when the subject does become notable. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician who doesn't meet anything close to WP:MUSIC. The article's creator has constantly removed any and all CSD and notability template tags in spite of several warnings. Has also contravened the WP:3RR rule several times. I've nominated this AFD for notability and also to stop an edit war occurring WebHamster 21:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Cricket02 : You shopuld get your head round reality before mouthing off like that. NO-ONE can know, before a single is released for sale to the public, whether it WILL DEFINTELY sell well or not. Take Garth Brook's last single. One of the biggest names in Country music and it didn't even make the charts! It didn't sell well. Our comment on Ballestrini is neither trival, nor spurious. It is a genuinely held opinion of one of our reviewers, a guy who has been producing, recording and publishing Country music for more than 34 years. He's an industry expert and I'd say his opinion is anything BUT trivial. Now, tell us what the weather's going to be like tomorrow! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackman (talk • contribs) 06:43, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can find absolutely nothing else about this character. While the claims may be true, this article faces a serious verifiability problem - and a likely notability one too. The Evil Spartan 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 13:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert any notability. Anything worth mentioning can be summarised on the main page Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 10:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of some products (but not others, with no rationale) from Motorola. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, and an arbitrary collection of information. As such, easy to feel like it's just advertising. Mikeblas 21:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (with possibility of merge or other rearrangement). Cool Hand Luke 00:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of characters from the movie Titanic, contested prod so bringing it to AfD. This may garner lots of enthusiastic WP:ILIKEIT support, but it's hard to see how these character lists accord with WP:LIST and WP:WAF. Eusebeus 21:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely keep - list is too big to merge back and many of the characters are notable. Please don't ruin somebody's hard work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 14:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixtapes that have no non-trivial coverage from reliable, third party sources. This fails WP:N because there is no "significant coverage" from sources that "address the subject directly in detail". Sources simply having a track listing is far from significant. Unlike notable album articles, these can never have charts, sales, awards, themes, or critical reviews. Spellcast 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's "too many" to consider at once, I'll PROD each one. I withdraw this nomination. I have no doubt these are not notable though. Spellcast 09:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spellcast 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very short stub on non-notable sequel game. First chapter of game doesn't have a page, neither does the gaming company. Possible speedy for no context. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about stylized constructions in mathematical discourse are in general hard to source and of marginal encyclopedic interest; in this case there's arguably no specialized meaning anyway, as the construction can be interpreted correctly in ordinary English. Trovatore 19:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as requested by author. the wub "?!" 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article fails to assert notability and lacks any secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The company may or may not be notable but this AfD concerns the product itself. The article appears to describe a software adaption to a well-known and notable product. By itself it appears non-notable. JodyB yak, yak, yak 19:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete my article.
--AngellpPezzullo 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancruft. Pleasehelp 19:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Hu12 21:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing unfinished nom made by User:MarkinBoston. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Hu12 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography / spam by non-notable artist. -- RHaworth 19:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft and unsourced. This is basically a hitlist made by MTV. Wikipedia is not for hitlists. If someone wants to see MTV's list, I'm sure they can find it on the MTV webpage. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. PeaceNT 00:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IS_NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Jeff 19:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability is established (or even asserted) by the article. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 18:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search finds no sources for such an event (excluding the World Socialist Website) New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication that this club is more notable than any other like it New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 18:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not appear notable (nor any source is given to support his notability), apart for having worked for several years, as many of us do. Goochelaar 17:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and Verification. I can only find links that are either Wikipedia or totally laden with ads, which make it impossible to verify. Can't find WP:RS links. Has been tagged since Dec. 2006 and no one has found sources., including me. Pharmboy 17:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable. The sockpuppetry and attempts to fool us by signing someone else's username didn't help. - KrakatoaKatie 10:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively unknown record label which only appears to have two artists on the books, one of whom is non-notable per WP:MUSIC and has been nominated for a CSD. All supposed links to citations for notability refer to the other represented artist but not to the label itself. So basically the label is non-notable. Article creator (as well as a possibly sock-puppet anonymous user} has repeatedly self-deleted 2 or 3 CSD notices and a recent prod. WebHamster 17:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. No references given. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 17:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website/company. Fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. All 'references' are from the website itself. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly, like many of the UK Students' Union pages, this article just doesn't assert notability at all. It reads like an advert, cites no sources whatsoever, and provides no external links to prove notability. I've previously nominated this for speedy, and then it went into Prod - that was a mistake on my part, it should have had a discussion. So here it is. TheIslander 17:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no references supporting company notabilty provided or found NeilN 16:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Keep, article has improved significantly --NeilN 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason why this was nominated for deletion much less Speedy Delete. I'd class the delete request as attempted vandalism. -- Lumpy
I just reviewed WP-7 and this article does not qualify for speedy delete under those criteria, so could we at least get the speedy delete removed for now as we work on resolving the normal delete process? - Al --Thalkyudes 19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I get a vote too, right? Of all the articles I've written this is the only one that's ever been flagged for deletion. I'm doing everything I can to make it a model listing, so bear with me - Al --Thalkyudes 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Independent sources are not optional. Eluchil404 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Organization lack of nobility. Activites are not notable and no verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found (e.g. The Straits Times) as of WP:CORP. All information so far are linked directly from Singapore GNU's website. Cocoma 16:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the group is already acknowledged by the GNU Project while the Straits Times is irrelevant here as this is an international organization. I would nominate this page as a stub though.
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.44.29 (talk) 14:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly, like many of the UK Students' Union pages, this article just doesn't assert notability at all. It reads like an advert, cites no sources whatsoever, and provides no external links to prove notability. TheIslander 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary page, not a page for an encyclopedia, merely a page of heavy metal derogatory terms. Dan 16:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - patented processes and items should have sources, and this one has no third-party verifiable sources to substantiate the claims made here. KrakatoaKatie 11:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was reluctant to PROD this, as it is a "patented process", and may require context provided by an expert. I'm not sure under which notability guideline this falls. Weak delete, pending opinions of scientific minds. Xoloz 16:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. PeaceNT 00:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was prodded as OR, which it is in large part, as its unifying theme is weak. However, it does have some sourcing, and there may be useful information in here to merge somewhere... though I don't know where. I definitely think more eyes will be helpful here. Anyway, delete as inappropriate article topic. Xoloz 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 04:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Private school with no claim of notability in article. "Controversy" is not sourced, and gsearch does not confirm allegations. Possible attack page by student. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. KrakatoaKatie 11:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not meet the criteria for notability per WP:MUSIC. Group has not even released an EP. Nv8200p talk 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable.
Article is about a politican who's run twice for the United States House of Representatives, but lost both times. Official website is down, and other notability is not asserted. Delete. D-Day 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:BLP1E. KrakatoaKatie 10:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficiently notable. (She's basically fallen off the radar.)[30] Delete. --Nlu (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by me, A7- no assertion of notability whatsoever. J Milburn 16:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Page doesn't even assert notability. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. There is obviously some notability here, but the article desperately needs expansion to fulfil this. ELIMINATORJR 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hospital. It claims George Orwell wrote 1984 while there, but the hospital opened in 2001. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG which states "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found" No reliable sources were found for this group. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 15:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rajah Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) Clearly fails not notable company WP:CORP and totally unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards 15:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO as Chambers has not had significant roles in productions. His appearance on Who Wants to Be a Superhero? is no different than the appearances of untold dozens of other reality show contestants who've not been found notable enough for articles. This was nominated previously and kept largely on the basis of speculation about his rumored appearances in the comic book and film that were awarded as prizes for winning the show. The comic has been published and the film has aired with nary a mention of Chambers or his Iron/Dark Enforcer character. Discounting the crystal balling of the keepers there's no notability here. Otto4711 14:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. CitiCat ♫ 03:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chimbudeven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) Possible WP:COI only edit of creator and totally unreferenced since July 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Four-letter word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)
Totally unreferenced since July 2006 The article is unencyclopaedic.Pharaoh of the Wizards 14:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list: a category about such albums already exists Tomj 14:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominated previously as part of an ill-fated mass nomination, which was split apart and closed no consensus. This is a directory of loosely associated topics, seeking to capture every character of a particular occupation regardless of the lack of any relationship between them. A similar more general police detectives list was deleted and this one is no better. Otto4711 14:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE & MERGE - While the list may be interesting, even noteworthy, it's probably more appropriate as a "Police officers in popular culture" section in the Police article. --BaldDee 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 15:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person; the person's acheivements seem to be more trivial than anything, and hardly warrents his own article. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 14:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fath Vehicle Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD) clearly fails WP:CORP not notable and totally unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shanti Auto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)
Clearly fails not notable company WP:CORP and totally unreferenced.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arjun Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)
Fails WP:CORP,not notable company orphaned since since August 2006.Pharaoh of the Wizards 13:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Discounting SPA. Hoaxes do not belong on wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 00:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article cannot be verified. Neither the subject nor the book cited nor the author of said book provided any g-hits or evidence of existence. Contains some really incredible claims. Possible WP:HOAX. Evb-wiki 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not notable enough. Stuarta 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 03:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article also fails WP:MUSIC - no sources desribing the release of this single, or even, the name. I could not find a reliable source to support this article, which means that this article also fails WP:NOTABILITY — *Hippi ippi 10:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Very few google hits and no academic sources. The article does not quote any refs. It will not not approp to redir to Green Christianity -- Alan Liefting talk 09:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally created for a non-existent Heesham Brook (not found in GNIS search or on Google) and has been turned into a complete nonsense article. Alansohn 09:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (with no prejudice against revisiting topic later). CitiCat ♫ 03:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
triviabag excuse for a list. Indiscriminate collection of information. Robin Hood in popular culture already nominated. Bulldog123 08:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not merging because it seems these mentions were originally cast off for being too trivial. Cool Hand Luke 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not even sure what this list is really about, which should spell out the problem enough. I think it's about the location. Seems like another WP:NOT#IINFO "in popular culture" list, that provides no substance. Bulldog123 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renominated separately per suggestions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Asian people. Bulldog123 08:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as unsourced article, nn band. - KrakatoaKatie 09:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, no independent releases, no notable artists. WP:BAND. Giggy\Talk 07:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable song - the band (Hilera) don't have an article, no reason why this song should. Giggy\Talk 07:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was boldly closing and redirecting to Big Two. This article describes a well-known game that goes by many names; presumably the authors heard it was called "High 2", and that's good enough reason for me to keep a redirect. I think this redirect is benign, but if any editors feel that it should be deleted, please contact me on my talk page. Cool Hand Luke 01:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of being a notable game. Sourced from a blog. WP:MADEUP. Deprodded. Weregerbil 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Oktoberfest celebrations. WjBscribe 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Oktoberfest in Hong Kong article does not establish notability. While the general assumption is that the Oktoberfest festival in Germany is notable, an event with the same theme in Hong Kong does not confer notability. Currently, the Hong Kong article is mainly about an annual local celebration put on by a local hotel. Luke! 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for deletion.
The reason being is that both of these articles are about local Oktoberfest celebrations that are based off the original festival in Germany. As many AfD's have shown, local chapters/organizations/clubs/festivals/etc. may not be notable just because their parent organizations/themes are. The notability is not conferred or transferred. Luke! 07:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 07:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page reads like a corporate website. A web search finds a few newspapers articles on the company, but all are Person X hired by Carter/Burgess. This page needs alot of work if the company is notable. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 08:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a hoax. This person gave two soundbites in an interview on the news, many people have given more. Some of the sources aren't sources at all New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Expired prod with rationale:
Maybe so, but I doubt that this AfD won't turn up Monty Python fans willing to expand the article and deletion is certainly not entirely uncontroversial. Pascal.Tesson 06:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some assertion of notability, but no reliable sources listed (or found via google) New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as dic def. Cool Hand Luke 01:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:DICT and WP:NEO New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 06:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no references, fails WP:PORNBIO Hornet35 06:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Movie is only spectulation and article is written like an advertisment. Oysterguitarist 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca 01:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything on Francis Adofo that would make him notable. There is certainly nothing that would make him qualify under WP:BIO. The article is also unsourced and a google search shows nothing that would work as a reliable source. DesertAngel 05:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was to keep the article.
Speedily kept as bad faith nom by now indef-blocked user. Georgewilliamherbert 07:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a notable band; it could probably even be eligible for "speedy deletion" per ((db-band)) ElminsterAumar 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep some/split some/merge some into List of characters in Ben 10 and other articles if appropriate. I'll put the ((Afd-mergeto)) and ((Afd-mergefrom)) notices on that page and the Omnitrix page and leave the rest to you long-winded lunatics steadfast editors. :-) KrakatoaKatie 10:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through this article, it appears as though it is in severe breach of WP:FICTION, as it contains no real world analysis, no outside sources aside from the episodes, and is instead a giant list of fictional characters on the fictional cartoon show Ben 10. If there is a Ben 10 wiki, I recommend it be transferred there, but until then, I nominate for deletion based on WP:FORUM (as the talk page has degenerated into three pages of forum style chat), WP:FICTION, and WP:NOTABILITY. Fancruft and Listcruft would come into effect here as well. Ravenmasterq 05:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having said all that, I fail to see a reason to delete the Omnitrix article. The world's hungriest paperweight 21:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology for Canvassing as shown above; I'll admit my wrong doings and take full responsibility, and I hope my actions do not harm the credibility of Ten Pound Hammer, who is a good person.Ravenmasterq 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A lot of information, pictures, and references (even if most/all of them are episodes). Also, if you look at the history there is already over 400 edits to it this month (=O!!!!)! ÇɧĭДfrĪĔпd12 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so we've run WP:FICTION through the ringer a couple times; debated the finer merits of Fancruft and what they mean, visited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS a time or two, but ignored is perhaps the one driving nail into the coffin for this article. And that, is notability. There are four subnotes to the general notability guideline for Wikipedia, and indeed, for general reference as well. Omnitrix fails all of them. The general requirement is: 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'. Let's go over the detailed requirements as well.
I'll give you a chance to digest all that, but basically, the first detailed requirement for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. Now, I won't argue that Omnitrix does have a lot of sources. 44 of them! It certainly isn't a poorly sourced article, however, the sources aren't reliable. They are not independent of the topic (as all are either from the TV show, or from Bandai), and therefore they do not have a Neutral point of view. Obviously, the TV show isn't independent of itself, and Bandai, who licenses the show, isn't independent of it either. Therefore, all 44 sources fail independent source guidelines, and fail neutral point of view. Therefore, the first of WP:N has been failed as well.
Also, notability requires objective evidence. There is none here. While it seems that everyone involved in this argument voting keep disagrees thoroughly with WP:FICTION, there still isn't any real world analysis to this article. It is completely self contained, and has no bearing on the world outside of the Ben 10 cartoon. Therefore, it fails WP:N, and it needs to be deleted.Ravenmasterq 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New perspective. Lately I've been thinking, and I believe I've found a new way of looking at both the article and the guidelines. (Yes, I said guidelines, not rules. Learn the difference.) Let's say, hypothetically, that there weren't articles on the Omnitrix and List of characters in Ben 10 and Ben 10: Secret of the Omnitrix and so on. Instead, suppose we had one HUGE article with all this information on it. That article would incorporate plenty of reliable secondary sources and have real world content. Although the article would be unrealistically long, all the major arguments you have used towards the Omnitrix's deletion wouldn't apply. Therefore, when applying such guidelines to articles that are a part of a collection of articles (such as my previous examples, kekkei genkai and the Halos), I'd recommend applying the guidelines to the collection as a whole, and not on the individual articles. The Omnitrix may not have any "reliable secondary sources" or a connection to the real world, but the show it is a part of does. If the show is considered notable, then such a major aspect/plot device of the show should be as well. That is common sense. The world's hungriest paperweight 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FrozenPurpleCube 23:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zfish9 19:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) okay, i say we KEEP the article. if you need a real life analysis, remember, IT'S FICTION! here's the definition from dictionary.com if you need it.[reply]
fic•tion –noun
1. the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, esp. in prose form. 2. works of this class, as novels or short stories. 3. something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story. 4. the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining. 5. an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation. 6. Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law. aslo this was in the wikipedia deletion process page: "...However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish9 (talk • contribs) 19:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to note that this discussion page is now longer than the article itself. We've managed some good debating here!Ravenmasterq 04:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the excellent arguments made, particularly FrozenPurpleCube and HungryPaperweight. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 21:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trim & Merge into other related articles. Baring that, Transwiki to Ben 10 Wiki. -- Jelly Soup 00:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does contain useful information on each of the alliens used in the show. Does it really matter if they all come from inside the show? They are all mini characters in their own right. If you deleate this, you may as well deleate every other artical for a fictional character on wikipedia.Wild ste 09:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete ɑʀкʏɑɴ 20:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Queried speedy delete for NN by WP:WEB. Anthony Appleyard 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, though additional references would be a good idea. — TKD::Talk 01:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references, original research, no assertion of notability Hornet35 05:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. The character is a one-off hero in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault and is a playable character in Medal of Honor: Heroes, but there are no external sources that claim the character is notable outside of the series. Arguably, the character is barely notable within the series, but that's beside the point. The article content is nothing but a plot summary of Allied Assault, and contains very little information about the character. A previous Mike Powell article was redirected to Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, but now leads to a disambig of notable Michael Powells. Scottie_theNerd 05:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. CitiCat ♫ 02:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google confirms the existence of something named Z39.70, but it only gives ~200 hits, which don't give the impression of notability. The one-sentence article is woefully insufficient and might technically fall under speedy deletion criterion A1 (no context). Shalom Hello 04:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard the expression "on the up and up", but this attempt to explain the linguistic phenomenon is a hopeless failure, violating WP:V and WP:NFT, and failing to demonstrate notability. Shalom Hello 04:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 08:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this article was created by fans of the Dragon Booster series. Indiscriminate; Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor a directory. The main article has its own need of improvement, and I'm all for that, but the subsidiary list article(s) should go. --Stratadrake 04:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks references, and I don't see how any can be found online or in a library. Delete unless references somehow come to light. Shalom Hello 03:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polychronization is a term used by one person, Eugene Izhikevich. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a commonly accepted term. Hardly anyone in neuroscience has ever even heard of this term, and it is debatable whether the term is even useful since alternative terms have been used to describe precise temporal relations between spikes. Do a Pubmed search for the term, polychronization, and the only thing that comes up is the one paper by Eugene Izhikevich. Clearly this term, polychronization, is not significant to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe if the term becomes more widely adopted within the neuroscience community, then I'll change my mind. Placedood 03:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks reliable sources and does not assert notability. Shalom Hello 03:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem notable enough for her own article. Check the google results: [57] This person seemed to have her 15 minutes of fame for making a amateurish conclusion. We don't have articles for all record holders, so I don't see a need for an article for this one. Bulldog123 03:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Chaser - T 03:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of this person seems borderline. The article reads like something written by a manager or press agent, rather than an encyclopedia article. No interviews or secondary articles are cited. Greatest claim to notability seems to be as a voice actor on Robot Chicken and as an uncredited actor on Deadwood. eaolson 19:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which means that she has been credited in 6 different Deadwood episodes, as well as being uncredited only 4 times. And she has been voiced character on 7 different episodes of Robot Chicken. If notability is your only reason for deletion, then I'm going to have to disagree. The article can be cleaned up though. Pepsidrinka 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, such a common ethnicity means the article escapes WP:NOT#IINFO ELIMINATORJR 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's painful to have a list which includes both Vladimir Nabokov and Debra Messing. Anyway, for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Norwegian Americans, etc. etc. Bulldog123 03:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, probable neologism; Google brings up nothing relevant. Oli Filth 03:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 23:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page reads like a PR release. A google search finds no sources. The article is orphaned. New England Review Me! 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 23:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person fails all the inclusion tests for notability of people. He is not the subject of substantial coverage. He is not widely recognized. He has not been the subject of a credible biography, etc ,etc. His inlcusion in Wikipedia appears solely related to his Wikipedia presence. He was targeted by MichaelMoore dot com for his edits on Wikipedia and his biographical details have been increased but nothing that substantiates notability. He is a lawyer. One of millions it seems. He has not achieved any notable awards that would warrant a biography on Wikipedia. --Tbeatty 02:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((notability|Biographies))
tag, rather than a deletion. Since a decision to delete would trump me anyway, I'm going to be only slightly bold and add the tag amidst the debate. I note that this article may be useful more for what it cites TO then the direct subject, so it deserves a more considered evaluation. --Doug.Talk 23:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. PeaceNT 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A google search turns up no reliable sources for this club. It non-notable. No edits made on the page since last September New England Review Me! 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. PeaceNT 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only assertion of notability is being related to a suspected serial killer. New England Review Me! 02:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. @pple 04:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No clear criteria for inclusion (what exactly constitutes "research services"?), and most of the entries are redlinks. Oli Filth 02:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep . The sources mentioned by those who commented should be inserted into the article, because it could be renominated for AFD if it stays unsourced. - KrakatoaKatie 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no assertion of notability. article is unsourced. New England Review Me! 02:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 13:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has required cleanup for 3+ months. A google search finds no reliable sources, and page has needed sources since may. 2 of the 3 contributions of this pages author have been to this page. Appears to be a hoax page New England Review Me! 02:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No Guru 17:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional language is not notable enough as it is only used in Pingu. In a previous deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinguish the result was merge and redirect to Pingu, but a few months after implementation this was reverted for no apparent reason. Eldar 01:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by Whispering. The reason given was "Article gives no indication of notability or verifiability with multiple independent reliable sources." - furrykef (Talk at me) 01:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable girl group who don't come close to satisfying WP:MUSIC. There isn't even an Allmusic entry for them. Please don't confuse attempted hype with notability. They have no released albums, no national tours, no record label, no apparent chart success. WebHamster 01:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Arguments for deletion are not put forward particularly strongly, and the consensus here seems to be to keep these lists (although many of the "keeps" are also poor, and are defending the existence of Taiwanese Americans, rather than this list. Lists and categories are not the same thing; both have a use. Neil ム 11:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another unusual list of nationality-nationality. Although I'm sure Taiwanese Chinese are different than mainland Chinese (Cantonese correct?), and definitely have separate cultures, I don't believe a Taiwanese-American is truely anymore notable than a Castillian-American (as in the Spanish region). Different regions of different countries have separate dialects and cultures too. I don't see the need or importance of making a -American list for each. Also for reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Belgian Americans, etc. For very similar reasons, I'm also nominating most South Asian lists.Bulldog123 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Nonsense article from indefblocked user. ELIMINATORJR 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof this TV show actually exists, which would fall under WP:HOAX, and if it does exist, then it is all unreferenced speculation under WP:CRYSTAL. And there's even some WP:ADVERT in there too. The trifecta! Ravenmasterq 00:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - does not pass WP:NEO. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being an avid ice hockey fan, I can truthfully say that I have never heard of the term "puck bunny," "puckslut," or "puckf%#&" in all my years of following the sport. Plus, this article only contains one minor reference (which, by the way, is called the myth of the puck bunny). Delete as non-notable. P.B. Pilhet 00:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. KrakatoaKatie 09:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy as blatant advertising, tag removed by a user who disagreed. While it might not be blatant advertising, seems clearly spam. CitiCat ♫ 00:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy for A7 (no notability). Procedural nomination, I'm neutral at this time. CitiCat ♫ 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Maxamegalon2000 16:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the only Restatement of the Law with its own article. I don't see what makes it any more notable than the rest, or what makes the rest notable enough to have articles as well. Maxamegalon2000 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Over-reaching translation from the French wikipedia. Entirely inappropriate in details level, and closer to a How-to. Circeus 01:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft. Lots of uncommon blogs and I doubt this is encyclopedic. Disclaimer: I am a blogger Computerjoe's talk 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep: per Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, the fact that the references section of this article establishes that the film has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" implies that the film is notable. The only arguments for deletion presented concerned claims that the film is non-notable, and the assertion that conspiracy theories (even if notable per Wikipedia:Notability) are not properly the subject of Wikipedia articles. The latter argument is rejected as having no basis in Wikipedia policies or practices. Furthermore, a strong supermajority of established users favored retention of the article. John254 02:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First deletion reason: Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria, namely: (1) the film is not widely distributed and has not received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics; (2) the film is not historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: (i) Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release; (ii) The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release; (iii) The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release; (iv) The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema; (3) the film has not received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking; (4) the film has not been selected for preservation in a national archive; and (5) the film is not "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. Further, there are zero mentions of the film in a Google News Search, and in an ordinary Google search, yields 16 pages of results to blogosphere articles, none of which are to a reliable source. MortonDevonshire Yo · 16:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After cutting the crap out of the article, it's reduced to a pitiful one line stub. Please, put it out of its misery. Will (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A1 - no context. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Context, no original content, no links, no categories, orphan Ozhiker 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]