The result was soft redirect to Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes)/Ford/VIN Codes. Phoenix-wiki 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Successful creation of a Wikibook that incorporates this topic (and many other VIN Code topics), and this article doesn't adhere to Wikipedia policies EvanCarroll (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was recently proposed for W:AFD, however in light of new information - predominately the successful ((prod)) of all ten other VIN Code articles from Wikipedia: I feel this should be resubmitted for deletion citing consistency. The new book b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes) incorporates and unifies all of the jarringly unfitting, tabular, un-cited information that previously resided on wikipedia. The wikibooks's chapter navigation is a superior form of navigation for this, that wikipedia requires excessive work to achive.
Furthermore, the articles are currently forked on both projects, so one should preside over the other. There are other problems with this article, that make it a bad candidate for wikipedia. When I use the term bad candidate, I do so signifying that even if the Wikibooks article will not be seen as a replacement, this still does not have suffice requirements for inclusion into WP.
And lastly, the wikibook article, b:Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN codes)/Ford/VIN Codes has better formatting of the content. Thanks to additions by User:Random832.
User:Corey Salzano is the obvious candidate to oppose such deletion. He will be canvassed soon after posting.
The result was keep. Wizardman 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated speedy; less obvious now, but I still don't beleive the notability concerns have been addressed. Additionally, the article has no independent sources. — Coren (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, but since the content has been merged, we need to preserve history. Therefore, redirect. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article could be adaquetly summarised in Queensland state rugby league team, if it isn't already. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed, so here we are. WP:MADEUP alledged cocktail. Shawis (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by User:Jerry --JForget 00:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a blog. It fails WP:WEB SilkTork *SilkyTalk 23:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not notable, possibly fake <KF> 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
from Talk:Murilo Polese:
He is a writer fro the magazine. I'm planning on writing an article for the magazine too. Denis (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah... He is a teacher for a public school and a phisycian for the Federal University of Espírito Santo.
Excuse my bad english, he is actually a physicists. He does research in the University and teaches physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denismaco (talk • contribs) 15:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kafziel Talk 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t want to be the one to do this when there is so much else on Wikipedia to be improved, but still, here we are. This is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, the last time being around 5 months ago. Now, since then Kevin Wu has had a major increase in his number of subscribers/position is the “Most Subscribed” section of YouTube, but other than that, the general problem with the article remains, in that are no reliable published secondary sources o establish notability. There are references, but all of these are either primary sources or blogs, which alone do not satisfy the notability criteria.
It has, in the first deletion discussion, been addressed that according to the notability guidelines for entertainers, if an entertainer has a large fan base or significant “cult” following, he may be considered notable. That being said, the only evidence we would have to judge if he has a “cult” following would be his number of subscribers which, although it has doubled since the last nomination, is currently just under a hundred thousand. Now, there has been and still is a good deal of doubt surrounding whether YouTube subscribers can be used as evidence of anything. Generally, the idea behind a YouTube subscription number is this: Anyone who is a significant “fan” or supporter of a person probably is subscribed to that person, but at the same time, not everyone who subscribes is a major “fan” or supporter. Even if we were to assume that he does indeed have a following of a hundred thousand people, that’s hardly a significant, or “cult” following at all. For an internet personality, he actually has relatively little demonstrable name recognition outside of YouTube, even throughout other parts of the internet, and as far as I can see it, being relatively popular on YouTube and on YouTube alone is not enough to establish notability. Calgary (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unsourced, unverifiable, WP:CRYSTAL. Kafziel Talk 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Completely unreferenced and contains numerous unsourced claims. As far as I am able to discern using Google, only the title has been confirmed at this point. If the article were to be trimmed back to include only what is verifiable, it would only consist of a single sentence. A single line in the Sterling Simms article would serve the same purpose. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close. Let's finish the FIRST discussion first. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy delete; tagged for notability concerns. Keilana(recall) 22:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No improvements made to the article, no sources found, and no compelling arguments in favor of keeping it. Kafziel Talk 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Game of unasserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Stormie (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable sources, breach of WP:BIO and WP:RS especially as the ACS self-publishes its members' work; article reads like he is a dedicated committeeman (as member of a group, not notable) who gets his work published by his group; nothing to say that his work has any real importance or notability; nothing to conclude that ACS should be exempted from WP:RS's publication requirements BlackJack | talk page 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#A7 as not notable if it was even true, which it isn't so per WP:CSD#G1 as well. Pedro : Chat 22:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no notability as far as I can see. No sources or references quoted. No substantive edits other than by the author. CultureDrone (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I considered a merge, as suggested by some commenters, but frankly, it's impossible to tell what information in the article is reliable, due to multiple anonymous editors doing things like changing the name of the forum's creator. Recommend that if someone is genuinely keen, they start a fresh (sourced) section in Tippmann. --Stormie (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's now a full year that this has been floating around with no attempt made to address the notability concerns raised at the time (see the talk page). While a lot of work seems to have gone into this, I really can't see how it warrants keeping as anything other than a one-paragraph mention on Tippmann; this seems to be the very model of an acorn of an unsourced stub that's been allowed to grow into a mighty oak of original research with a dash of how-to guide and social networking on the side. However, in light of the talkpage debate, the alleged 35,000 members, and most significantly the amount of work that's gone into it by multiple editors who don't appear to have seen anything wrong with it, I don't want to just shove this into the mulcher without a proper debate. Anyone who thinks this is salvageable, speak now... — iridescent 20:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Ravenswing 09:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish context (A1), provide content (A3), or to establish notability (A7) ColdmachineTalk 20:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, but under the condition that it is substantially rewritten to conform to WP:MOS within a reasonable span of time. Sandstein (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth is this? Certainly, its prose is coherent and many of its assertions have references, but it appears not to be an especially encyclopedic topic, at least in current form. It sounds a lot more like a policy analysis than an encyclopedia article. Thus, per WP:NOT and perhaps WP:COATRACK, it should be deleted, and we should also investigate the other 9 articles linked at the top. Exhaustively chronicling every move the CIA makes seems outside our scope. Biruitorul (talk) 20:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per debate and fixing up of the article by other editors. No point continuing this thread. Pedro : Chat 22:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a travel guide. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was nominated for deletion on 2004 (see talk page). The subject does not meet Wikiedpai's notability criteria since there has not been "significant coverage in reliable sources". Joelito (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Non admin closure. NAHID 14:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a travel guide. I imagine that this only duplicates content existing elsewhere, but maybe some of it could be moved to Festivals in Tokyo, for instance Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A source noting Kristina Behr's role as a reporter has been cited. If you want to take the song reference away, fine, but I would hope you won't delete the entire entry. Christopherbailey (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources for that Kristina Behr is a reporter. Even if there is a reporter named Kristina Behr, there must be proof that she is the Kristina from the song. BrainOnSka (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(contested prod) College football player that hasn't received significant (if any) media coverage. Fails WP:BIO. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is crap, because it fails to explain precisely and clearly what its subject matter is in the way that all Wikipedia articles should begin. There's a claim to notability but I can't verify it. There are sources but I'm not sure if they're reliable. Was previously deleted at the title FDTV. I don't know what to do with this - AfD is not cleanup, but I have serious notability doubts here too. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable yet, biggest claim to notability is guest vocals on a couple Avenged Sevenfold songs and a guest spot in a few Big & Rich tours. Only links are official site and MySpace; no reliable sources could be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. This entry satisfies WP:BIO. NAHID 15:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that the article was written by the subject. It is about a footballer that appears to have failed to make the grade at any club he has joined. There is no element of notability about this subject at all, unless the mere fact of being a pro-sportsman makes you notable which is palpably ridiculous. Paste (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so far as I have checked there is only one (maybe two) sims machina products that are notable. This list seems like (intented to be or not) its just a coatrack to hang less than notable machinima series on. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. A current Amazon bestseller in several categories is persuasive even beyond the consensus. Non-admin closure. RGTraynor 09:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in here to suggest notability for this. The only source is the Amazon page. 80% of the article is a plot summary. I say delete unless notability can be proven through reliable sources. Metros (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete hbdragon88 (talk) 02:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously deleted as an expired prod. It was recreated today and tagged as speedy deletion as little or no context. I'm bringing this here since, A. there is some context here and B. it was once deleted through prod. In my opinion, there is no telling if this book will or will not be notable. There is nothing known about it really except a small plot overview, a conjecture as to who might be in the book, and a possible release date 5 months from now. I say delete now with no prejudice to recreation in the future when notability is gained. Metros (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got my info from the Warrior's Refuge page and the Warriors (Novel Series) page. Shapiros10 (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a separate arm of a best selling series, so i would still think that counts. Shapiros10 (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. The way these books are selling, every book deserves a page. Shapiros10 (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What if the info on Wikipedia that I used was originally from a non-wiki source? Shapiros10 (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No!!! Do Not delete this page you melonheads!!!! I've talked to the person who drew the pictures in it!!! (JLBarry) He comfirms this book is Real!!!
~Fp of W&W~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.129.13 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per criterion A7. Keilana(recall) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student who was once in a band (No.1 Defender - also up for deletion) and has made a (non-notable) movie. Lugnuts (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per criterion A7. Keilana(recall) 21:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Only incoming link is for Andy Clift (article also nom. for deletion) who seems to be some non-notable student. Lugnuts (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Kubigula (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musical group founded just this year. No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC; gsearch only comes up with band's own web site. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A redirect to Remote viewing or Stargate Project is possible. Sandstein (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are virtually no sources on this person, most of it has been tagged as unsourced since August, we don't even know when he was born, all we know is that he once took part in a project that is the focus of some determined POV-pushing. A smerge and redirect would be OK, but I see no support for an independent article on someone where the only facts are in relation to his participation in a not terribly important (and rather implausible) project on which we already have an article. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
perfectblue (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am rather concerned about the comments being made on this page.
Guy: You're comments about Project Stargate are treading on WP:AFG, what may or may not have happened there has no bearing on these proceedings and cold be construed as an attempt to color people against this page by association. It is inappropriate to make such remarks on an AFD and such reasoning is not supported under current AFD policy. Temperal: Per norm is not a Wikipedia policy. What, exactly, is your reasoning? Masterpiece2000: There is no Wikipedia policy by that name, plus Wikipedia regs permit hoaxes, frauds and popular myths. Even if this man is a complete fraud and a fake, he still has notability which gives allows him to have a page here.
perfectblue (talk) 08:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is yet another pov fork of Coral calcium, started without any discussion. The entire article is dubious at this point, poorly referenced, with unverifiable if not inaccurate claims. Editors are already edit-warring over tags in the article. Ronz (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted just yesterday after a PROD. The player's situation has not changed since then, and the current article makes no decent claim for this player's notability. – PeeJay 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, but this is outside the narrow scope of WP:CSD#A7. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Kikokushijo Academy. --Stormie (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable standardized test Ebenacea (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus - default to Keep (non-admin closure). D.M.N. (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highly POV article, contains uncited and possibly libellous allegations against police. The article is about a made-up term used on a discussion forum. Contested prod. Lurker (said · done) 16:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A nothing article. It's about a phrase and a forum. The phrase isn't worthy of inclusion while the forum is a forum like any other. If this article is kept, then it needs restructuring and will be end up as
And that will be that, never to be expanded upon. Whitstable (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is evidently of interest to users of the forum. Seems to have been edited to remove libellous content.
The result was Speedily deleted under criterion A7. Keilana(recall) 21:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Properly formatted article with what appear to be references, but which do not link to sources mentioning the subject. Insufficient evidence of notability. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasKeep JERRY talk contribs 01:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This articles asserts notability and has references, however whether that notability is sufficient is questionable. He is notable seemingly for one reason: an AP interview on one specific one time topic. I see no other notability outside of a response to someone else' comment. Being a writer/reporter alone is not notable. JodyB talk 15:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. John254 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is believed that this article constitutes original research. John254 15:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - A7. --Michael Greiner 16:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, alexa ranking of about 4 million, no reliable sources on this so doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability Xyzzyplugh (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory. Harland1 (t/c) 15:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent copyvio problems and probably WP:COI of some type up to and including possible entry of subject bio by subject or associate. See talk page for details. ΨνPsinu 14:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (trending towards "keep" anyway) — Caknuck (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7 No Notability Asserted by AndonicO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article fails the notability criteria. Also, the article is unsourced (though that can probably be fixed). · AndonicO Talk 14:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Addhoc (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A long dicdef, but still a dicdef. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteDoes not give howto instructions, just a guideline for whats available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 14:00, December 30, 2007 (UTC)
Do Not DeleteComment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 14:00, December 30, 2007 (UTC)
Do Not DeleteComment You may find this hard to believe, not everyone who reads wikipedia has a Masters in English. Allow me to state again, that my goal was just to start the ball, then hoping the community would help out and we could make it grow, obivously the Wiki community picks and chooses what it's interested in. Nice though, remaining objective, but still using a term like obscene to condescend on my writing style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 13:53, December 30, 2007 (UTC)
Do Not DeleteComment - After reading and re-reading, i'm pretty sure i didn't include explicit instructions on modding, did i mention step by step what needs to be done? I give a vague outlien, and perhaps i could have written it a little better, but was hoping to just get the ball rolling and let some community people help out with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prybar00 (talk • contribs) 13:53, December 30, 2007 (UTC)
Do Not DeleteComment - why is everyone here so high and mighty? it doesn't interest you so it doesn't belong. is that it? what is an encyclopedia if not an explanation of what things are. this explains what motorola modding is. and it's a huge community. just do a web search. millions of people involved. i fail to see how it doesn't have the right to have an entry. -- miketheevil1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketheevil1 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--a reply to above comment. this is not a how-to guide. believe me. there is more to it than that. this wiki only explains what it is, not how it's done.Miketheevil1 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)miketheevil1[reply]
The result was delete. --Stormie (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I thought this article should be merged with Runescape, but the "riot" it talks about is unsourced, and this material may not be relevant even to the Runescape universe. Neutral, but leaning towards delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Hut 8.5 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No asserted notability for this event. This article only speels out the circumstances under which the event is held. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly not very well written, does not conform to Wiki style and the one and only reference at the bottom does not really give enough information to make it properly verifiable. It is badly in need of the attention of a good editor. Nevertheless, it is not devoid of encyclopaedic substance and I actually found it interesting. I think that mostly it does not read well because the editors have largely been french speakers. It could be hugely improved if an english speaking editor were to go over it. This is not grounds for deletion. A quick (not very thorough) read through left me with the opinion that the only obvious part deserving of deletion is the penultimate sentence which could be construed as spam for a brand of icecream. Spinningspark (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for AfD by 203.184.43.210. Deletion proposed by Earth with reason "am not convinced that the person warrants an article in Wikipedia. Anybody wanna try to convince me otherwise?" on 2nd December. This is a procedural nomination - my opinion is Neutral. Tevildo (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious claim to notability - unless the Federation of College Democrats is a major organisation. No references given, no sources cited, speculative comments made. No substantive edits made other than by the author. Personally, I can't see any reason to keep this article. CultureDrone (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball keep. There is consensus that the article needs expansion, not deletion. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entire article is smaller than a sentence Sydney Know It Alltalk 12:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close, deleted per: BLP poor sources calling people essentially freaks. 1 != 2 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of people with "superhuman" abilities. Unfortunately, defining "superhuman" is rather subjective, and as such placing any entry on this list would imply a POV. Lankiveil (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted speedily as vandalism. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silly hoax: IMDB links are to film of The Wind in the Willows. Prod removed by anonymous IP editor. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 12:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, though if someone wants to begin a discussion on merging, I'm fine with that. Wizardman 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and Non notable community. Written like essay. NAHID 12:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable musician. As per WP:MUSIC, this person's works doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article. --Howard the Duck 11:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and Rename to Canada-Latin America relations (although if anyone does not like the new name please rename it if necessary. --JForget 01:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is unencyclopedic and it sets a bad precedent. If we create articles for every nation's relations with a geographic, ethnic, or linguistic area then we'll be trying to work out disputes over vague, subjectively-defined subject matter. Jose João (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep as WP:SNOW. Bduke (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, How do you define Egyptians as an ethnicity, the vast majority of Egyptians are Arabs and then there are the Copts though they are slightly culturally Arabs today, maybe just linguistically or slightly culturally...How do you define modern egyptian ethnicity? Is it by stating a common descent from the ancient Egyptians, the borders for defining what was Egyptian then and what is Egyptian now aren't easily defined today? This is confusing even for me??? The Coptics and the Nubians do have acknowledged ties to the ancient Egyptians but can we overencompass the arab definition with that of acknowledging ancestral non-Egyptians, through acknowledging arab-ness where does one acknowledge ancient Egyptian ethnicity?Dom--Hisham 5ZX (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
article is a history not a surveys of people. other users ignores talks consensus to delete and create new article, refuse to debates issue in talk pages only to revert the page.
The article needs a complete rewrite, and I think it can be done like so:
Consensuses: Delete areticle and rewrite totally like Dutch People or Swedes articles. Moved duplicate history section to its own article called Historical perspectives on the Egyptian people. now focus can be on egyptian people not history. Nardelli 02:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nominator withdrew his request. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's just another journalist, making her non-notable. The only notability is FHM's list. I'm not sure if that alone makes her qualify WP:N. -xC- 09:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Geek Hardcore", as it stands, is a neologism that supposedly describes a more progressive form of Post hardcore bands, but I've never seen the term used in any reputable music journalism, AFAIK. If there are any sources that would say otherwise, adding them to this article would probably work, but frankly, the sentence "In 2007, a Post-Hardcore fan named Tibbalz coins the genre after seeing the similarities in the music he listened too and the bands' distinctness when compared to other Post-Hardcore bands." pretty much indicates original research. I don't see much else on this article that doesn't make it an fork of the original Post hardcore article. TheLetterM (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Stormie (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization. Despite its grandiose name, there are no independent sources to verify the notability of this body. The article is largely a listing of red links, which the author claims will be remedied "over time." The article appears to be a coat rack on which to justify articles about its members; that is, the existence of this article justifies the existence of the others. There are a few Google hits, largely links to Ohio State pages or a few press-release type pages, nothing more. The author's tone is too promotional as well, and promotion seems to be the main purpose of the article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 08:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Stormie (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly unnotable, very few Google hits. A few articles in medline does not make a researcher or scientist notable - I have a few medline hits for myself and I'm not notable. Also, article is evidently created by Ardestani himself. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Maybe a merger should be attempted, as suggested below. Sandstein (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion -- unreferenced and not notable. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Former mayor of Ocala, Florida (pop. 50,000), now adjunct lecturer at Florida State University. No clear evidence of enough coverage for notability for local politicians per WP:BIO, or evidence of passing the WP:PROF test. Rigadoun (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable character, from a story. No assertation of notability or sourcing. Lawrence Cohen 06:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Creature_type#Giant. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 03:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a prod tag on this article, and left what I thought was a gentle, educational message that it was a "Directory-like listing of non-notable fictional monster. Sources on page are drawn from within the D&D books, are as such are primary. Primary sources are good for meeting WP:V, but not for WP:N. This article would need more than one third-party source to meet notability requirements." An editor removed my tag with the following edit summary, "rmv template--i object to deletionism in general." So I must bring this article here for a debate. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasMerge/Redirect JERRY talk contribs 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not serve any encyclopedic purpose, it's simply a list containing items of varying notability; essentially an indiscriminate collection of information. The main House (TV series) article should list the main awards and this one should be deleted. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. CSD G7- author requested deletion. Mattinbgn\talk 07:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially non-notable book series. Googling for the name of the title or the given author yields no results; a spelling change on the author's last name yields 273 hits, but none have anything to do with the topic. Article was PROD'd and removed by the creator. Article currently fails WP:RS as well. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: Speedily deleted due to either no claim of notability or snowball clause (your choice), with vandalism of this discussion/vote by the article's creator on top. (Service not included.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article establishes no notability for the band. The page seems to simply be an advertisement/bio page created by either a band member or someone associated with it. The only albums this band has created are self published and there is no indication of widespread recognition or any "hits" per WP:MUSIC notability guidelines Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. WP:MUSIC indicates that non-notable songs "should redirect to another relevant article" and, as the articles have already been merged, the articles must be retained for authorship history to satisfy the requirements of GFDL. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a song written and performed by Gensis. Per WP:MUSIC songs should not have there own articles unless they have something that specifically sets their notability above most songs. This article makes no assertion of such. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the following:
Adding these to the discussion. / 18:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep as clear POV forking, as is obvious from the nominator's rationale. Nrswanson (talk · contribs) has created a mess of article and template forks. Xe has already once done a bogus copy-and-paste "move" of this particular article. And this is not the only article that xe nominated for deletion on the grounds that xe had written a fork. Edit the existing articles and templates if you think that they are non-neutral. Do not create POV forks. I've tidied up some of the mess. I encourage editors with an interest in these articles to perform cleanup of Falsetto and Voice type, to integrate Nrswanson's text properly. Uncle G (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This article contains material that is covered in other wikipedia articles, most notably falsetto register. Furthermore, this article fails to incoporate itself with the larger topic of vocal registration and is highly biased towards a vocal pedagological perspective that fails to incorporate the perspective of speech pathologists. In addition some of the information on this page is uncited or comes from suspect sources that lack credibility.Nrswanson (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation if additional claims to notability arise, such as being published in peer-reviewed academic journals or winning more significant awards — Caknuck (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After having tried to improve this article, I have come to conclusion that it completely fails WP:PROF. In particular: a) the initial claim that he has authored a text book used by 700,000 students is misleading. He wrote a few study guides for an educational video by John Stossel featuring colleague Walter E. Williams. This does not represent a significant academic work b) he has received no substantial secondary coverage, even the Salon piece is a fleeting reference c) no major awards d) the Virginia Institute should be considered a primary rather than secondary source, with a biography that reads like it was supplied by Rustici. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Content can be restored to userspace on request. Sandstein (talk) 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The content of this article is already present in articles such as Monarchy of Sweden, List of Swedish monarchs, Anglicization, etc. Although well-intended, it doesn't seem to centre around a cohesive topic that isn't covered at either List of Swedish monarchs or Anglicization. The article simply is not an encyclopedic article and I suggest that the article be deleted and moved to the user's space. Charles 04:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum: The reference given for the article is the main editor's own work and as such this may constitute original research. Note also WP:SPA, WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT with regard to comments below. Charles 01:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography listed on p. 188-189 (Demitz speaks and writes his first language, English, plus Swedish, German, French and Spanish, and reads Italian, Latin, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish and Norwegian):
Nordische Personnamen in England, Erik Björkman; Halle, 1910
Continental Germanic Personal Names in Old and Middle English Times, Thorvald Forssner; Upsala, 1916
Norsk Isländska Dopnamn och Fingerade Namn från Medeltiden, E H Lind; Oslo/Upsala/Copenhagen, 1931
The Pre Conquest Personal Names of Doomesday Book, O van Feilitzen; Upsala, 1937
Nordisk Kultur (VII); Personnamn, Assar Janzén; Stockholm/Oslo/¬Copenhagen,1947
Det medeltida Västergötland, Ivar Lundahl; Upsala/Copenhagen, 1961
Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire & Yorkshire, G Fellows Jensen; Copenhagen, 1968
Svenska förnamn, Roland Otterbjörk; Stockholm, 1970
Oxford Dictionary of English Christian Names, E G Withycombe; Oxford, 1977
Svensk etymologisk ordbok, E Hellquist; Lund, 1948
Svensk uppslagsbok, G Carlquist, J Carlsson et al; Malmö, 1947 1955
Thesaurus Nummorum Sueo Gothicorum, E Brenner; Stockholm, 1731
Sveriges Historia från Äldsta Tid till Våra Dagar J VI), Montelius, Hildebrand, Tengberg, Boëthius, et al; Stockholm, 1877 1881
Den svenska historien (2), G Grenholm, et al; Stockholm, 1966
Sweden: The Nation's History, F D Scott; Minneapolis, 1977
Gillesboken, Helga Lekamens Gille; Stockholm, 1393 1487
Regenter och regeringschefer i Norden, A W Carlsson; Malmö, 1982
Sveriges monarker, S Duhs; Hudiksvall, 1986
Kungar & Drottningar i Sverige, L Lidbeck, B Berg; Stockholm, 1993
The Monarchy in Sweden, Weibull, Palmstierna & Tarras Wahlberg; Stockholm, 1981 & 1995
Danmarks Historie, hvem, hvad, hvornær, B Seocozza & G Jensen; Copenhagen,1994
Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe, D Williamson; Exeter/London, 1987
Europas Kungahus, L Schubert, R Seelmann Eggebert (K W Avraham); Stockholm, 1995
Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten (I II), W K Isenburg & F Freytag von Loringhoven; Marburg, 1965
Stammtafeln Europäischen Herrscherhäuser, B Sokop; Vienna, 1993 Nationalencyklopedin, K Marklund, C Engström, et al; Höganäs, 1989¬-1995
The Statesman's Year Book 1994-95, B Hunter et al; London, 1995
Siebmacher's Grosses Wappenbuch (I II), J Siebmacher; Neustadt an der Aisch, 1978 & 1981
Heraldisk Tidsskrift (68), Copenhagen, 1993
E Eikner (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is repeated from elsewhere in this article consists mainly of the Swedish name forms corresponding with the English ones, most of which are not found anywhere else in Wikipedia. To make the lists complete, known name forms are also included for some of the kings and queens of later centuries. Should we list only those monarchs that had name forms that are less known and exclude the others from the complete list? The information presented to clarify the need for improved knowledge about the legitimate older name forms is based on the lifelong experience regarding problems and solutions of a bilingual and bicultural writer. J T Demitz (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In his last entry below (now hidden as a personal disagreement - good idea!) editor Charles wrote re: one of the issues at hand "Carl is an English name but it is not retroactively applied to historical fingers [sic, s.b. figures, I assume] where English usage gives a standard English name." On behalf of many people, Scandinavians and Germans as well as 100% English-speakers, scholars and non-such, young and old, teachers and pupils, I would like to register this emphatic, constructive objection to such a policy, if it really represents the last word from Wikipedia on the matter. All kings of Sweden should be called Carl in English in a modern world which definitely evolved once and for all with the ascension of King Carl XVI Gustaf to the throne in 1973. Carl is a standard English name for use in 2007. E Eikner (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Personal disagreement hidden |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Comment: Charles is attempting to use the fact that a distinguished author wants to give some of his respected work to Wikipedia as an argument for his (Charles's) deletion campaign. The same bias is prevalent in the other far-fetched complaints above. The deleters that have signed in below are just as likely to be Charles's personal friends. How do we know with all this anonymity? Is it detrimental for people to identify themselves like gentlemen/women here? Why is everybody so anonymous? E Eikner (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Lack of WP:V. Pigman☿ 05:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested CSD; it was tagged for notability concerns. Brought here for further consensus. Keilana(recall) 04:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Austin Powers in Goldmember. While there are substancial numbers for keeping the article the issues of notability and reliable sourcing havent been addressed. According to WP:FICTION The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop.. There isnt any substancial coverage in relaible sources of "Goldmember" in the articles linked during the afd or the from those already in the article Gnangarra 16:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non-notable character (as being a character in a hollywood movie does not necessarily make you individually notable) that has no references or notability, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition which should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn nomination by redirect. Non-administrator close. Rt. 15:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only evidence for Pea Ridge, Florida is Wikipedia itself. There are a Pea Ridge Elementary School and Pea Ridge Church in Santa Rosa County, but they appear to be named for Pea Ridge, a ridge (according to the USGS GNIS[31]). There are some mentions of a Pea Ridge in blogs, forums and real estate ads, but I don't see any reliable sources. That would make this article unverifiable. Donald Albury 03:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, satisfies notability criteria by virtue of a charting single. --Stormie (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rapper Mhking (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be notable--all references are to ISKCON (Hare Krishna) web pages. A sampling of 20 web hits found no reliable sources. Matchups (talk) 02:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted CSD A7. Non-admin closure. Lankiveil (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Doesn't seem notable to me, just a YouTube video. Google search brings up nothing of note. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 02:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per criterion A7. Keilana(recall) 21:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable; just trying to promote themselves. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions - 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Gwernol (talk · contribs) and Ryan Delaney (talk · contribs) 16 minutes apart, both per CSD A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Marshall Mosher[edit]
Not notable; google search turns up nothing. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|