< December 5 | December 7 > |
---|
The result Was keep --JForget 01:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the 28 days/weeks movie articles. As such, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per author request. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article of a county clerk, lacks notability. Kwsn (Ni!) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the 28 weeks move article. As such, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nedelessly excessive amount of indiscriminate information about the various non-English translations of an anime. The Manual of Style for anime and manga articles recommend that non-English release information should be transwikied to a respective language's Wiki, and there's precedent for deleting articles detailing non-notable translation differences. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Mark as possible copyright infringement per instructions at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions—I have done some searching around Wikipedia to find information on lists and copyrights and have come across User:Dragons flight/Evil looking lists which is referenced in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fair use/Archive 5#Fair use lists. The rationale under which the list here is likely a copyright violation is that it is based on editorial input an not a simple list of facts; being a list based on judgements of the staff of Computer Gaming World ... in fact, the page referenced by the list-article as a reference is itself possibly a copyright violation by this criterion. However, if the list was the result of a reader survey, then it likely would be usable under fair use because the list would then be reporting the facts of a survey that the editors of the magazine did not otherwise alter. With this doubt in mind, I'm not going to delete, but mark as a possible copyvio and let more experienced persons take it from there. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 December 11/Articles for the posting I made to the Copyright Problems page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) —Preceding comment was added at 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a copyright violation of Gaming World's intellectual property, since it's based on personal opinion and not immutable facts. There is a long record of deleting such articles in the past because of the copyright nature of the lists. Corvus cornixtalk 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect as G-d does. Early closure due to obvious consensus. Mangojuicetalk 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between G*d and the article it redirects to is not clear. CruftCutter (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus Maxim(talk) 13:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is part of a series of articles created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus [2] that have several problems. 1. The article, in it's entirity, is Original research a Synthesis of unrelated facts written semi-intelligently in order to push a particular agenda, which is the suggestion that there is some-sort of institutional anti-Christian problem in the country of the subject, and there are no "reliable sources" (except for a disproportionate focus on a controversial left-wing scholar who was part of a major controversy concerning bias in the Campus Watch list and unqualified reports from an organization who has been accused of bias against India [3]) to make this assertion,2. The article subject is unencyclopedic. No other articles for allegations of violence directed against specific religious groups in a specific country have ever been created.Not a single one, for any of the worlds 10 major religions and 150 major countries (ie not one of 1500 possible articles). Why is India being singled out for opprobrium? What is to prevent somebody from writing articles ranging from Anti-Shinto violence in Papua New Guinea to Anti-Semitic violence in Puerto Rico based on synthesis? 3.This article, together with several articles created by this user, constitute POV-forks of existing articles. In this case, the article is a POV fork of Religious violence in India, from where content has just been copy-pasted over. These POV forks are being edited by the user with what clearly is a tendentious intent to disparage it's subject (India and Indians). Thus, I nominate these unencyclopedic article for deletion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD template removed. This is a neologism, if not actually a hoax (zero ghits); and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. DO11.10 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not establish notability. Google searches for article's title (with and without punctuation) fail to turn up references on sites other than Wikipedia and the theater's homepage. Created by a user named Felixmortimer, an account likely owned by Felix Mortimer, the artistic director of the theater. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is part of a series of articles created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus [14] that have several problems. 1. There are precisely zero Reliable Sources that back up any of the assertions made about Anarchism in India.The only "source" offerred is a forum post. 2. The article, in it's entirity, is Original research a Synthesis of unrelated facts written semi-intelligently in order to push a particular agenda. 3. This article, together with several articles created by this user, constitute POV-forks of existing articles. These POV forks are being edited by the user with what clearly is a tendentious intent to disparage it's subject (India and Indians). Thus, I nominate these unencyclopedic article for deletion Ghanadar galpa (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A website offering MP3 clips from movies. Obviously written by someone with a COI (using words such as "ours"), and failing notability. Jmlk17 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know from the edit history it looks like I'm AfDing this a few minutes after creation, but the history's deceptive; a previous version of this has already been speedied. This is sufficiently different to warrant its own discussion IMO. Apparently non-notable; singer with no releases, and whose sole apparent competition win is on a website, not anything that confers notability by Wikipedia rules. There is maybe a faint assertion of notability through the voiceover work - the sole reason this is at AfD and not prodded - but IMO voiceover artist isn't in and of itself enough to confer notability. — iridescent 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bettina's song "She Is" is on Billboards "Hot Singles" Chart and has gone to #4. This justifies her notability by Wikipedia rulesBlacciebrie (talk) 00:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Helena[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to the University. This is the usual and long-standing practice in the case of such student organizations, and nothing said in the very verbose arguments below refutes its application in this case. In closing, I take due notice of those arguing from outside policy, apparently on the basis of personal taste. Xoloz (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another completely non-notable Students' Union. The article asserts no notability through external links to credible independant sources, and as such fails WP:N. TheIslander 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the point about universities having a vested interest, I was more referring to using Uni sources for 'facts and figures' information, rather than for opinion. I at first thought this was unsuitable for merging, as a lot of information would be lost, but having read through the article, I agree with Corvus cornix that it should be condensed, then Redirect and Merge.
- I have a serious problem with this set of guidelines. As an editor from the United Kingdom, it is very obvious that these guidelines have been written with the intention of regulating the entries for Colleges & Universities in the United States of America, and from an American point of view. It troubles me that University & College systems internationally are different to that found in the United States of America, and the guidelines per se could (and already are been) used by deletionists to remove student organisation articles en masse from the project, especially Students' Unions. In the UK, with exceptionally few exceptions, Students' Unions are seperate legal entities from the institutions they are associated with. It is misrepresentative for the project to concider them non-notable as an excuse to push them into the same articles as their associated institution. The Legal status of UK Student unions are also changing to a registered Charity status in line with the Charities Act 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TorstenGuise (talk • contribs) 22:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. forgot to sign my comment. TorstenGuise (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Uh, I wouldn't say that "troubling" would be the word when describing differences there mate. If you believe that the guidelines needs to be changed for student unions, you may write your own set of guidelines and propose them to be adapted, just like how this set of guidelines is trying to achieve consensus before adaptation. Yes, there are significant differences between the education systems in UK and US. However, student unions exist in just about every university. Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only. Now, I don't know (I'm American) whether the student union also serves as an "alumni association" for university graduates or not, but seeing that universities in America have their own alumni association separate from student unions, this topic would definitely needs some clarification. However, as for establishing notability for other international student union articles, you may state in the article's lead that the student union is a non-profit organization (or in UK terminology: Charity) with its non-profit registration listing made readily available. This should steer away from the university guidelines and begin to adapt to corporation guidelines on Wikipedia.- Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - agreed. There seems to be a lot of weight placed on the fact that 'legally' an SU is a separate entity from the university. However, that's about as far as the separation goes. The SU wouldn't exist without the university; the university has a vested interest in the SU; the SU is comprised solely of people who also comprise the university etc. The two are undoubtably linked. Putting this entire argument to the side for a moment, and assuming that it was completely 100% separate, so what? All (UK) SUs are pretty much the same - there's little that differentiates one from the next, which is why (on the whole, with one or two examples) they're really not notable. TheIslander 18:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Whether the student union is a separate entity or not, its existence is based solely off of the university - meaning if (for example) Oxford University seizes to function tomorrow, its student union, however notable from the hundreds of years of history, would be not notable unless you are trying to describe the previous history of the university only." - Disagree if the university folded the student union would continue functioning with the core focus of getting some compensation for the students and/or aiding there enrollment in other institution to complete their degrees, and fighting for the rights of the students in that situation it would cause a massive change in how it was run & it's aims BUT IT WOULD STILL EXIST! --Nate1481( t/c) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment - Hopefully the last one... Once again, ladies and gentlemen, please be objective on the issue at hand, the argument that this article should be deleted is based off of lack of individual notability as well as a direct conflict with WP:UNI's article guidelines. I suggest editors who want to keep this article not battle out on policy viewpoints, as it really doesn't help this article's AfD progress. Instead, if you really want to see this article survive, add more substantial references that would in fact substantiate this article's individual notability instead. Constructive debate is always encouraged, but this type of stalemate "well...too bad" arguments are really getting sad. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) Own the page. Write a comment as long as War and Peace to prove the admin that closes this that I must be right b) Discredit everything everyone else says by refering to the Arguments to Avoid in Votes for Deletion regardless of an arguments quality c) Oh dear, its not a vote but if it was I would be losing - must be hundreds of sockpuppets! d) Stick to a wikipedia policy so strictly that I risk falling foul of Don't be a dick' 137.222.229.74 (talk) 00:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now A somewhat longwinded position, in the hope of bringing this in some direction (and also not from a sock-puppet either). I admit this is a bit stepping onto the broader policy areas, but I think this is needed. There are a mixture of problems flying around this AFD, of which one of the main ones is whether or not there is something such as inherent notability, and if there is whether or not students' unions (on the UK model) qualify.
On the basic concept of inherent notability I think there generally is agreement that some subjects are automatically notable and each individual article doesn't need to "[assert] notability through external links to credible independant sources" although it does help (and cited sources are useful for fact checking). Picking one utterly unrelated example at random, there aren't yet any cited on the article for George Gardiner (politician) (who was the Member of Parliament for the area nextdoor to where I grew up) but the article gives an indication as to why he qualifies - former member of a national legislature. That article has not yet been proposed for AFD but I think any attempt would have a snowball's chance in Hell. This is primarily because for that subject area the idea that all members of national legislatures (or at the very least of the UK House of Commons) are inherently notable is generally shared across Wikipedia.
With students' unions I think a big part of the problem is a lack of agreement as to whether there is inherent notability for them. This I think has contributed to the lack of cited sources actually asserting it (along with the fact that in my experience many of the SU articles have been worked on by less experienced Wikipedia users who don't always know the basics of policy; it also doesn't help that some obvious internal and external sources ranging from SU minutes to back issues of the local papers are often not easily accessible) as many of those working on the articles don't immediately realise the need for them (and often by the time they do, an AFD is stacking up making it seem like a waste of time to try at this stage). It's almost one of those "if you know the subject area well the notability is obvious to you; if you don't it isn't" (although sweeping generalisations never encompass everyone) and we're getting into minutae as whether SUSU is notable on the bais of currently being "the largest SU not in the NUS" (it's not unless Open University Students Association has just joined) as a quick substitute for a process of encouraging the articles to get sorted out.
Now WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is one of the easiest arguments to invoke in an AFD discussion, but I think that term is overused. In particular it shouldn't be asserted when someone cites another article on a very similar subject - to give an example from this discussion, the article Oxford University Student Union doesn't have any external sources either and when such similar subjects have had articles for a considerable period of time and not come in for AFD it does make people wonder about the objective criteria (especially as the OUSU article is easily reachable from the SUSU one by both the Aldwych Group template and the category). This is probably one where a group nomination would have been better than only having some articles up for individual discussion. It could also help guide the drafting of the policy which is provoking concern in the various debates.
I can't immediately spot whether anyone has previously tagged the article with comments about the need to assert notability through sources, and there's certainly nothing on the talk page. So my suggestion for now is 1). do not delete this article (and the others up for AFD); 2) put a clear suggestion/request about notability and sources on the talk page that explains it rather better than some of the templates that don't always scream "THIS ARTICLE MAY BE DELETED IF IT DOESN'T GET THIS"; and 3) try and get an actual policy in place on the inherent notability issue rather than just a current proposal. Then the outcomes of either 2) or 3) will give a better position for a way forward that can command consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect, with no bias against re-creation in the future, should reliable third party sources be found to establish notability. Pastordavid (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable students' radio station. Article asserts no notability through external links to independant sources, and thus fails WP:N. TheIslander 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. I nominated this article for deletion in good faith, as it did indeed seem non-notable to me. However, from the comments below it is clear that this is not the case, so I withdraw my nomination, and appologise for any inconvinience caused. Non-admin closure. TheIslander 23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable students' radio station. Article asserts no notability through external links to independant sources, and thus fails WP:N. TheIslander 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional characters from Home and Away with no verifiable sources showing real-world notability, following the precedents set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Dalby (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination). Please review the arguments made in those discussions before repeating them here. Pak21 (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination includes:
The result was Keep due to notability not being temporary. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this page for deletion 2 years ago and it survived, I still think it was a neologism and and advertisement for Virgin Mobile and believe that no one uses it anymore. CastAStone//(talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 03:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable tempest in the creation/evolution blogosphere, only 329 hits at google. CruftCutter (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism, article created by the originator, no use outside of originator's personal definition. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But the most telling is that George Dvorsky (which is mostly based upon autobiographical sources, note) tells us outright that Dvorsky invented this and three other concepts and added articles about them to Wikipedia. Please don't waste everyone's time with "prove that Dvorsky originated this" arguments. Dvorsky boasts of creating these things and of creating Wikipedia articles about them. They were, he states, made up in the shower one day.
One of the neologisms that Dvorsky boasts of having in Wikipedia, Techlepathy (AfD discussion), has already been discussed and deleted. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And your reasoning is invalid. The fact that later editors found a whole bunch of additional content means nothing, because that content is on a range of disparate subjects. Editors have found zero sources on the subject of astrosociobiology. (I challenge you to point to even one source, apart from Dvorsky who made the idea up, on the subject. I also challenge you to cite a source showing that someone other than Dvorsky made up the concept of astrosociobiology. I've pointed to him saying outright that he did. You need to prove your claim that someone else invented this concept. I've actually done research on this, and I've found no-one else. Please demonstrate how you know that someone else did.) The content defining the methodologies and assumptions of the field is all simply made up, by Dvorsky himself (see Dvorsky's initial version of the article, which is a simple elaboration of his web log posting), in the shower as he said.
The additional content, what there actually is of it, is editors subsequently adding to the article, assuming that what was previously there was correct. The sources used by those editors, when they have used them at all, have been on the subjects of the Intelligence Principle and megatrajectory — which this article is simply duplicating. And that is how this article has arisen: a mish-mash of other article content copied and pasted here, along with a whole bunch of original research, defining a field of science that does not exist outside of Wikipedia as an introduction and basis. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional entity has no out-of-universe information and no real-world notability. It does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I am also nominating the following related pages, which detail fictional entities in the Periphery, for the same reason:
Pagrashtak 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. There is no consensus to delete the article at this time, but I do note that there does seem to be a consensus that this article is in need of major editing and contains a strong element of original research and POV. I also note that this AFD is rife with irregularities, including movement of editor's comments and the comments to the effect that this is somehow a "vote". I'm sure this was all done in good faith, but it wasn't particularly helpful to sorting through this mess and the parties responsible are strongly cautioned to not do this in the future. Those irregularities alone nearly made me relist this for another, cleaner AFD and I would say this close is without prejudice against another AFD at some point if the core issues here are not sufficiently addressed.--Isotope23 talk 17:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin: Please see the talk page of this AfD for additional yakkity yak about this nomination, including some votes that will inevitably get lost in all the discussion that doesn't belong here. AvruchTalk 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing that this article be deleted because of A7, and possible G5.
It appears to be a transparent attempt to boost the image of the group calling itself Messianic Jews (henceforth: MJ) by means of presenting it on equal footing with Christianity and Judaism.
It has been argued on the article's talk page that using MJ helps to illustrate differences and commonalities between Christianity and Judaism. I would contend that the Christianity and Judaism article does this sufficiently, and this article is redundant at best.
MJ is a fringe group which is rejected (often with much venom) by all Jewish groups, and is looked askance at by many Christian groups as well. Those which support it do so as part of missionary efforts.
In short, MJ is more of a tactic than a group, and to the extent that it is a group, it is a marginal one, and does not merit being set on an equal level with Christianity and Judaism. LisaLiel (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please place your vote here with a brief description of your reasoning. If you wish to use a lengthy rebuttal, please take it to the talk page or use a ((hidden begin|title=''See replies to this vote''|toggle=left)) TYPE COMMENTS HERE ((end hidden)). Please keep all further replies within the previous tag.
The first 11 votes have been extracted from lengthy comments and discussions. Please see the talk page for complete reasonings.
Please note: as votes change - the most recent vote is often below in the comment section - users are not updating this vote summary consistently:
The result was delete, because, while a product it makes may be notable, the company is not, and efforts to prove its notability have failed consistently. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 14 December 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)) . |
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created and now maintained by several WP:SPA accounts with no other edits other than related to "AtTask" . Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G11. Has a few links but they seem to be merely self published or trivial coverage and mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to have ever existed. Five didn't start until two years after it was supposedly broadcast and it's not on IMDB or elsewhere. AW (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL. Also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free Go programs Anshuk (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. Pastordavid (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person's only claim to notability is an appearance as a contestant on America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9. She has not received significant press coverage (except for one article in her hometown paper). It's possible that she will become notable at some point, as many other former contestants of this show have, but she certainly isn't at this point. Eatcacti (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. no reason for deletion This is a Secret account 23:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lion Red (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humourous hoax about a non-notable neologism. (Website author states his poetry constitutes a new genre.)Nehwyn (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I should add that in the meantime, the author has been blocked for repeated vandalism on Macabrism - he was trying to re-insert his hoax there. --Nehwyn (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another Students' Union which completely fails to assert notability, for example through a lack of external links to independant sources. Fails WP:N. TheIslander 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -JodyB talk 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable list of halls of residence at one particular UK university. Fails to assert notability through use of external links to independant sources (only one included, and is only for one single fact). Reads like part of the university prospectus, and (in my opinion), fails WP:NOT#DIR. Has been nominated for speedy twice in the past, but has been contested/disagreed with, so time for an AfD. TheIslander 20:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN book. Author of the article, User:Trabuen, is a WP:SPA that has only posted material (mostly promotional) about the book and its sequels. Appears to have been posted by author (Trabuen backwards). Failed ((Prod)) by this nominator. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Evidently this page was already deleted by User:Kingboyk, see message: "18:54, 7 December 2007 Kingboyk (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim terms".) This is a violation WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOR in its attempt to equate terms from opposing religions. This is stealth "interfaith ecumenism" that just does not fly. Perhaps some of the key notions on this page can be elaborated upon in the Interfaith article or in the Christianity and Judaism and Judaism and Islam articles, but the way the columns are constructed here conveys the false perception that each religion gives equal weight or significance to these ideas. For example, "anti-Christ" does not exist in Judaism, since they do not accept Jesus as Christ in the first place, and indeed some Christian groups view Judaism as the religion of "satan" and "the anti-Christ" so that this entire exercise is doomed as an exercise of the absurd. The columns cannot disguise the violations of WP:NOR. (A similar situation has arisen at Glossary of Christian, Jewish, and Messianic terms created by the same editors.) IZAK (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A band. The article does not say they ever charted, and does not give any indication of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per discussion and improvements to article during discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A band that has (unusually for a band) released a couple of albums. Oh, wait, that's normal isn't it? No independent sources, no evidence presented of notability per WP:MUSIC. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Consensus to delete. 1 != 2 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable student's union. This article doesn't assert any notability through use of external links to independant, reliable sources, and thus fails WP:N. TheIslander 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per nominators strong argument. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from WP:ORG: "(An organization) is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. (...) The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered." One of the reasons for this requirement is that the article should be based on these secondary sources, allowing for neutral coverage.
Despite two AfDs, the article under discussion is still based on primary sources only. A number of secondary sources (press coverage) have been cited in the previous AfDs, see also the article's talk page. However, these do not seem to contain in-depth coverage. Some of them are republished press releases, such as here. Others (such as this one) just state, "XYZ from Student LifeNet said..." and do not tell anything about the organization. They do not have the organization as their subject; rather, they are about abortion in the UK, and mention the organization only in passing. Also, since those quotes are quite similar in some places, I suspect that the quotes are very close to republished press releases as well.
In short, substantial independent sources have not been presented, and I doubt they will ever be. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per excellent explanation by nom. Most student organizations are non-notable, not covered in independent sources. This one is no exception and I fail to see an independent source that does not conform to the model that Wolterding showed above. Epthorn (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't appear to be a notable or widely-disseminated scientific theory. JavaTenor (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, as evidenced by[24]. Anyone is welcome to recreate this page in good faith without stalking Jimbo, but serving as Brandt's proxy is unacceptable. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The item is not notable. Delete. Lawrence Cohen 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete, disagreement over whether sources in article are enough to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-notable cellular phone. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Insufficient substantial third-party sources exist to carry a viable Wikipedia article on this product. The article is just a list of features and essentially unreferenced.
((prod)) was removed by User:For Queen and Country with the comment "Article does not read like an advertisement", so now we're at AfD. Mikeblas (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as notability is not inherited. Davewild (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this article appears to be about Hari Singh, a clearly notable figure, but it's unclear whether the actual subject of this article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for biographies. JavaTenor (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, needs improvement. 1 != 2 23:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Advert Hu12 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete until multiple reliable sources can demonstrate notability. 1 != 2 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Delete, although I don't really have a dog in this hunt. Notability debated on talk page. All sources seem to be notices of showings/directory type listings. Only mention in a notable source is from the New Yorker, but from the "What's going on around town" section - essentially a directory listing. Does not appear to meet the standards of WP:BIO. Pastordavid (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) - This article is about a planned minor league soccer team that was to have played in the Memphis metro area. The team folded prior to ever playing a game or fielding a team. Frog47 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as not meeting the relevant guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football player - never played in a fully professional league. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, seeing as how it's now sourced. Wizardman 16:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization Randomran 18:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization Randomran (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defining genre is far from an exact science, many terms are bandied around, spliced together etc. The emergence of one very specific genre, First person shooter, has made it even more likely that either first or third person perspective will be smashed together with a genre to make an all-new one, but this doesn't mean that it is an established genre with established norms (which is the whole point of genres in the first place). Perspective in video games is a separate subject, first and third person perspectives could be applied to most genres, we should be careful about reeling off big long lists of genres which will ultimately confuse the reader and defeat the object of the articles.
Metroid Prime certainly is called a first person adventure (not least by [25] Nintendo themselves), but that doesn't mean that FPA is an established genre which needs an article, it doesn't mean that there are many comparable games to slot alongside it. Likewise, the 100k results mean that the term is used, (doubtless the perspectives are twinned as a descriptor with all the other genres) but doesn't mean each of these combinations can be written into a meaningful article. this article leads me to believe that both perspectives can be covered in adventure games. I'll continue looking for other sources. Someone another (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the decline of the adventure game genre, the action-adventure genre became much more prominent. As a side effect, action adventure games are sometimes simply labeled as adventure games by console gamers, usually to the protest of adventure purists.
The result was keep (no strong consensus to delete). Elkman (Elkspeak) 13:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy page on a mall in Arkansas. A search for reliable sources turned up none. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article on the self-styled, self-appointed head-of-state of a proposed secessionist state. The article Khalistan movement makes clear that this a movement whose time has passed, and neither Khalistan movement nor Khalistan articles even mention the "president". I quite accept that governments-in-exile may be demonstrably notable per WP:NOTE, but in this case all we have is a weak secessionist movement which has not established a credible govt-in-exile. The "President of Khalistan" may merit a brief mention in Khalistan movement or Khalistan, but not a standalone article, as demonstrated by the fact that a google search throws in only tangential mentions of the subject in news reports on individuals, such as Khalistan ideologue Jagjit Chauhan dies. (See also Category:Presidents of Khalistan and CfD December 4#Category:Presidents of Khalistan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for deletion. The organisation is non-notable (only encompassed one minor city) and it was closed in 2005. Gh5046 (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was speedied as nn-bio, though notability has been asserted here by publisher. Brought here for greater concensus. Khukri 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist Missvain (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, already speedied once. Puff piece about non-notable DJ, no non-trivial independent reliable sources, fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. One Night In Hackney303 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains a notable DJ, with several CREDIBLE SOURCES - Vibe Magazine, Delaware News Journal.
Wiki Music Notibility Requirements:
- Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.
He has his own NATIONAL radio show - "The Wonder Years" Has Been In rotation on Sirius with: "Money Mayweather" - DJ Wonder "Just A Little Bit (DJ Wonder Remix)" - 50 Cent
There are no clear indicators in the text that this is written in AUTO-BIOGRAPHY form.
Please see Cipha Sounds Wiki Page for reference as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.192.7 (talk)
The result was Uncontested delete. 1 != 2 23:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because it shows no purpose other than to take up space. It has no stated purpose and no reason why it should be kept. If the Lil Eazy E page was deleted and protected, this one should be, too. Do not get the wrong idea. I am not doing this to get that page back. I am doing it because the article has no importance. wiki_is_unique (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per the earlier prod, it is WP:MADEUP. The prod was contested in an anons second edit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be notable; no sources to prove notability Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Secret account 00:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable musicians. The article itself claims that references cannot be cited to verify either the existence or notability of these individuals. I am not able to find any media coverage of either their careers or their deaths, or their contribution to a musical style. Apparently they were not very successful, and the tragic circumstances of their deaths is unfortunately not enough to maintain the article. ... discospinster talk 15:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A transmitter that is not yet complete. Even when it is complete there is nothing indicating what is notable about this particular example Nuttah 20:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is a non notable bus route. Wikipedia is not a directory, it is not a guide and it certainly isn't a mirror for the London Transport website. London Transport is notable, but that does not mean that every product/service they offer is. I can find no coverage of this service that is not trivial and certainly none that would meet the requirements of WP:NOTE. Nuttah 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, fancruft. Keilana 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable character from a single movie. Fails WP:FICT and is mostly WP:PLOT with a dash of WP:TRIVIA. A much shorter character description belongs in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, following the guidelines set out in the Film MOS
I am also nominating the following related pages because he is also an unnotable character from this single movie not warranting having an individual article:
The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voice actor for a children's TV show. That's it. Fails WP:BIO. -- Brewcrewer 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source, and notability is exceedingly murky based on the current text. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band that that just happened to be playing in the same town as other (notable) bands at the time. Lugnuts 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the band so I know these things are true. However, I am unable to prove any of it - Top of the Pops database is not on-line anymore, Melody Maker archives are not on-line. In order to prove it I'd have to scan all the press cuttings and send the videos of TOTP and Big Breakfast etc - it's not really practical! All I can suggest is that you have Google with the name and you'll find many references - I don't know if they would be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia though. Shoebill2 12:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was in the band, Ah right - you best read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest then. Lugnuts 12:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a conflict of interest - if you look at the history you will see that I neither created the article nor contributed to it. I don't know who any of the contributors are either. I only contributed to this page to give you a little more info before you delete it (as invited by the deletion notice) although I hope you can see from my tone that I am not trying to stop you deleting it if you think it appropriate to do so. Shoebill2 14:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, could probably have been speedy deleted. Davewild (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band that fails to establish it's notability Lugnuts 16:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No substantial independent sources are known for this organization; it seems to fail WP:ORG. PROD was contested in February by the article creator. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xoloz (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is moved from CSD to AFD. I think there is some assertion of notability although the validity of that claim remains to be seen. I think the community is best positioned to make that decision. JodyB talk 14:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sean William @ 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TV episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve qualify for its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn 07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. To List of Star Trek characters: A-F CitiCat ♫ 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The stub for Dean Taylor (musician) already contains a senstence about this, I'm not really sure what other content would be worth merging, especially with the lack of sources. Mr.Z-man 06:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced unnotable band (ghits seem to refer to another band) that fails WP:MUSIC. -- Brewcrewer 03:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't this already addressed? It was already found that this article refers to a band containing a notable musician. This article is about Dean Taylor's current project. How is that unnotable? This article refers to the american band and the american band is listed on the same page.]) -- User:Dilbert2002 03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Colton's blog says nothing about the existence of this episode, and the odds of it airing this season even if it existed are slim due to the WGA strike. Will (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Will suggest merging. CitiCat ♫ 02:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The song barely charted through radio play and was not released as a single. Articles seems mostly trivial and unsourced, any useful info could be easily merged into Minutes to Midnight (album) if necessary. Delete Rehevkor 22:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Outside of local interest, this does not seem to satify WP:Notability. No third party references/citations. Seems to be written almost as an advertisement/press-release CultureDrone (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 02:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable students' union, which asserts no notability through means of external links to reliable, independant sources. In my opinion, the article fails WP:N. TheIslander 14:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Nothing seems to link there, so a redirect seems unnecessary. — Caknuck (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long list of non-notable red links. Article is just listcruft and any notable content can be covered by a category. Fair Deal (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band seems to be of questionable notability and blp concerns, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. There is a clear consensus built that, while the article needs citations, the catchphrase is notable enough to have its own article. Maser (Talk!) 07:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, this is a dicdef that has been expanded on with no sources. Wiktionary already has it. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. The nominator apparently doesn't want the article deleted. No-one else does, either. AFD is not Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Only nominate articles for deletion where you actually want an administrator to hit a delete button. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. There have been a lot of related deletions lately, where many advocated deletion, and where the result often was a merge, in the end into this article. Those deletions happened and closed between the last nomination of this article and now. In order to properly gauge the community consensus on these articles, this article has to be nominated for deletion again. User:Krator (t c) 13:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Pastordavid (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article constitutes opinion / original research, and does not qualify as a consensus article on debt-based monetary systems. The article is fundamentally unsound and needs total deletion. Gantlord (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creator declined prod for crystalline album. No title, no tracks, no sources. tomasz. 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, one primarily source according to talk:Buza Russian WP dose not have any better info. Nate1481( t/c) 09:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as G11 and G12. --Oxymoron83 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is speedyable, but the author keeps removing the tag. Just bringing it here so an admin will see it. Copyvio of both [31] and [32]. Also pretty much spam. And now the last section is original research ARendedWinter 08:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and move to Marxism in India. Pastordavid (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article contains no actual info, just a few lines copied from the CPI(M) article. Superfluos to the category:Communist parties in India. Soman (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete and redirect. Pastordavid (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All of this information is already provided at Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2004, with the exception of the totals polled, which can be seen on the pages of the electorates. There is little practical value to any of the rest of the article. Frickeg (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was renamed to Norfolk County Public Library. Elkman (Elkspeak) 14:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, very few sources available for any information on this article except the one I found with the building history. One of the five branches of the Norfolk County Public Library [33] (possibly the main branch). Would suggest a merge, but the library system itself has no article. Collectonian (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Self-evident redirect and merge-as-you-like to Westroads Mall shooting, per WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's an otherwise non-notable person who's sole notability is summed up in the article for the shooting spree. Dismas|(talk) 06:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, please add any sources mentioned in this discussion to the article if not already there, renaming is an editorial decision. Davewild (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like an artificial/original research distinction, not a concrete, verifiable, notable topic. Superm401 - Talk 06:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, here are some sources (sorry I have not had a chance to fix the -omics page with these);
--Dan|(talk) 11:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Just because it is illegal doesn't mean we don't need an article on it. As long as sources can be found for illegal practices, they are encyclopedic. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I recommend the extension of discussion as I've only just now added the AfD notice to the page. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, I am not convinced by the keep voters that this article is notable. Sean William @ 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web sitcom of dubious notability. The article at least asserts some, with a famous executive producer, and it provides links to two outside sources. However, one of the sources is a single-paragraph blurb about the show, and the other is at a service for journalism students online. I don't think this meets the WP:WEB criteria of "multiple non-trivial published works." However, it's borderline enough that I'd rather delete it via AfD than speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Deb (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was prodded by me, but contested by the original author. So bringing it here instead. Seems to be an unremarkable mobile phone application. Google searches show not much more than people asking where they can obtain a free version. Maybe speedyable, but didn't know what category. ARendedWinter 05:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep Rigadoun (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only linked to by one article (Dadhich Brahmin), notability not asserted, insufficient context for typical readers, and various other style issues. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn college dorm, fails WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poet seemingly only published by his own micro-press. fails WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 06:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Salty Walrus[edit]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of public houses in Bracknell[edit]
Delete, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, was tagged speedy but has sufficient context to avoid speedy Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Philip Dawes[edit]Delete memorial article for a firefighter killed in the line of duty; noble, yes; notable, no. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and with regret LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Do not Delete- Will you also delete the pages for the firefighters that died on 9/11? Or because he was a Chilean firefighter is less important?
The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel this article should be deleted because there is very little info on it, And even worse, We're now in the opening month of the ride! Now that's just depressing--5VH9 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Notability is not inherited, and she is not independently notable.. Keilana 04:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Martha Alicia Porter King[edit]AfDs for this article:
Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO.
Delete as per User:TenPoundHammer LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - A President of the United States was born in her house which is now a historic site. Americasroof (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Delete Being the grandparent of a president is not in itself notable. The information here could be put on the Gerald_R._Ford_Birthsite_and_Gardens page. Alberon (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 10:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable per WP:BIO Strothra (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Honda ecu codes[edit]
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. This kind of information belongs in a lot of places, but Wikipedia is just not one of them. Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Adele Augusta Ayer Gardner[edit]AfDs for this article:
Keep - A U.S. President was raised born in her home. She is the reason Ford wound up in Michigan. Americasroof (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Non-notable reality show contestant. Hasn't done anything of note since the show. Completely unreferenced, so it's a WP:BLP problem, too. Mikeblas (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. They are not quite notable under WP:MUSIC yet, however, when they become more notable, the article should be recreated. The one thing I see is that according to the article, they've only released one EP and one LP, neither of which has charted or been covered in major press. Keilana 04:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, so here we are. Simply releasing one single album does not meet WP:MUSIC, without charts, awards, etc. to indicate notability. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The album has not charted or been mentioned in non-trivial press. If the band becomes more notable in the future, then this album will be more notable. Keilana 04:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, so here we are. Simply releasing one single album does not meet WP:MUSIC, without charts, awards, etc. to indicate notability. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Millsite canyon trail[edit]
not notable, author ignored advert tag Adimovk5 (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] recommend Millsite canyon trail for deletion
23:22, 28 October 2007 User:VivioFateFan (→Ad style article)
00:05, 29 October 2007 User:Ikanode (1,641 bytes)
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hey! (novel)[edit]A self-published book with little to indicate that it is in any way notable. The sole third-party source is a linked article to The Swindon Advertiser, presented as a press report on controversy created by the novel. In fact, the story reports that the author expects controversy. I can find no evidence that the prediction came true, nor can I find any other coverage of the book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Stop Sign[edit]
Information is already in 2007 American League Championship Series - also mentioned in Sports-related curses#Cleveland Sports Curse - maybe redirect to one or the other --Snigbrook (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mr.Z-man 04:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kamau Kambon[edit]Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Greetings [[User:Krzyzowiec|Krzyzowiec]] (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of free Go programs[edit]
This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL Anshuk (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Rigadoun (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Vicky-Lee McIntyre[edit]
Article lacks Attribution to Verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria … the claim that the subject "has also modeled for Playboy" (not the same as having been a centerfold, nor nearly as notable) is unsubstantiated by any WP:RS citations, although said claim was used as justification for declining a speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7). Happy Editing! —The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. Pigman☿ 03:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Go software[edit]
This is a list of external links which violates "Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." in WP:EL Anshuk (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hometown Hero (NCIS)[edit]The result was Delete TeaDrinker (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a speedy tag for this short listing of a non-notable TV episode, was turned down. Unsourced. AnteaterZot (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. For an event that has only occurred within the last day, it is generally unwise to debate on such a scale whether the shooting will be regarded as notable in the future. The article is decent in quality and (this is my personal opinion creeping in here) I believe the evolution of an article, at least in the initial stages, is easier and faster if there is significant interest in the subject matter. For now, it would be better to keep the article, let it evolve over time and judge later on whether it is notable.Harryboyles 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of the larger significance of this shooting yet - it's a top news story today, but there isn't sufficient evidence that this is an event worth covering. Furthermore, without the possibility of critical perspective it is impossible for this article not to violate BLP, as it is necessarily about the (often negative and tragic) details of living and recently deceased people without any consideration for broader significance. Simply put, it is irresponsible for us to claim that what we are hosting here is an encyclopedia article. Leave this sort of thing to WikiNews. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
High school basketball player, lacks notability. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of iconic drinkers[edit]
List with extremely fuzzy definition and an inherent tendency towards original research. What makes someone an "iconic" drinker? The list says it's for those for whom "drinking is clearly a recognised part of their public or private image," but there remains no clear way to define this, other than editors agreeing amongst themselves (WP:OR) who is "recognized" as a drinker. Delete as unverifiable, original research, and poorly defined. Dylan (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Very amusing, but there's no point wasting any more time on this. kingboyk (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Orphaned article; may not have even existed. Registered 1150 Ghits. jj137 ♠ Talk 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply] Running gags in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel[edit]
WP:NOT. kingboyk (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|