The result was Delete. POV fork. Aksi_great (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all - I request opinions on this article, which I strongly suspect is largely a cut-paste job of portions of Indian mathematics. A clear effort is being made to separate ancient history between the present territorial boundaries of Pakistan and India and this violating WP:POINT, WP:NPOV and WP:OR - [1]. I believe that this article violates the following policies: WP:ATT, WP:N, WP:V, WP:NEO, WP:SYN, WP:RS, ATT/RS. While the development of content in relation to the history of Pakistan is undoubtedly important, this article is by-and-large original research. Rama's arrow 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's part of Pakistani history.It's not original research as the sources are stated below on the external links section of the article.Mohenjo Daro is indeed in Pakistan.It requires some clean up as many articles do,but deleting it is ridiculous.It's not harming anybody.Like the Indian users,we are committed preserving our history as well.--Nadirali نادرالی
The result was delete for lack of nontrivial coverage in sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the people saying "keep" gave a valid reason why these roads belong in an encyclopedia. Having heard of them means nothing. Friday (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All six of these roads are non-notable and lack non-trivial secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of every street in the world. --- RockMFR 00:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was these shouldn't each have their own articles. I'm going to redirect each one as seems appropriate to me, and anyone who wants to work on merges can do so, but I don't see any particular consensus here other than that we shouldn't have articles on these topics. Mangojuicetalk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Catalog listing of various toy models. Several reasons for deleting: Fails the primary criterion for product notability: A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both independent of the company... or of the product's manufacturer or vendor, and reliable. The only reliable references are either on websites selling these toys, or those related to the manufacturers. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory.
I am also nominating the following related catalogue listings for the same reasons:
Croxley 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just yesterday when I had a look at the Thomas stuff shelves at my local TRU, wondering wether all these in some respects very different toys should go into one very very large article, I spotted a HO gauge version by Märklin I hadn't heard of before (on Märklin homepage). I think the Thomas merchandising phenomena is extremely important. The impact this has had on the toy train industrie is probably huge (anybody any numbers). In fact most of the wooden toy trains manufactors started or expanded after Learning Curve had revived the interest in wooden toy trains. I guess the model train producers and Train museums are also aware of the interest this character is building for their products and sites among the young ones. I can't really remember any other merchandised character that has so many parallel products in the same category. How many ways are there to build a track and run a thomas engine on it? I don't think there are as many different play figures so simillar in play technic for say Spiderman or Jack Sparrow. OK, some suggestions. I could imagine all lists could be put into one super list article. This one might look awfull, but it might be to the benefit of all the original articles. The Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise should include all merchandising products! Each with some information on what exactly the product is (a bag, a bed sheet, a toy train with this or that sort of tracks, a model train in gauge soandso). I guess without the lists a lot of the articles would become stubs that can be integrated into the "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise" article. The list will probably have to be protected from frequent deletion requests. It could be made more tabular, maybe the lists united to groups each with an own table like: Toy trains, Model trains, whatever. It would be great to have more info on the phenomena as such and the impact it is having on the toy industrie. This could lift the article from its appearance as something that rather fits to a fan site than an encyclopedia.
Ok after having a look at the ERTL Models list (we have two of them?) I don't really know how to organise the information in such a list better. Yet the list should be taken (not necessarly deleted) from the merchandise article and the article should rather give more info on every product line each than point to a category page. --T.woelk 11:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep ViridaeTalk 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article was nominated along with several other Millionaire million dollar winners here and closed with keep and an admonition not to mass nominate. I mass nominated them here but because I started with a different article I missed the first mass nom. The result was speedy close. All of the individual articles except this one have now been deleted in individual AFDs but I missed this one. This article should be deleted for all the same reasons as the others, that winning a stack of cash on a game show does not confer notability even if it leads to an appearance or two on other game shows. The contestant is already mentioned in the main article as are all the other deleted million dollar winners. Otto4711 00:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin NoSeptember as the article falls under the criteria of CSD A7. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR--TBCΦtalk? 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Georgia guy 00:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was RESULT is delete. Gnangarra 01:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates the content of Banknotes of the Australian dollar; there is also an article for each of the Australian banknotes. A gallery of fair use media is not an acceptable fair use, and galleries shouldn't be on wikipedia anyway per WP:NOT. Delete --Peta 00:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy A7, but seems to assert notability. Possibly not notable anyway. N Shar 21:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Amendments made to confirm notability User:oxford2008[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:40Z
Although I am an inclusionist I don't see any merit in advertising, this company does not satisfy criteria for inclusion under WP:CORP and such should be removed. If anyone could please expand article to fit in with WP:CORP I would be most relieved but otherwise I think it's pretty much au revoir! Librarianofages 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. OBVIOUSLY. 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Man In Black (talk • contribs)
Lists can be very useful on Wikipedia, but I think this is taking it a bit too far. We don’t need a list of everything that can possibly be listed, and I think this would fall under WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, though it doesn’t fall under any of the specific categories. No pages link there, and I doubt any would. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and Rename to Waste pond per consensus. Sources added. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable pond (unless sources like the EPA can be found) Nardman1 01:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys you need to keep this is part of piscataways history, its not necessarily good history but it is important — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffhanger25 (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:40Z
The result was Merge to Catamaran. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:39Z
I think this would probably be better off as a section in the Catamaran article, with this page redirecting there. --Hojimachongtalkcon 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, any cleanup tagging is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 21:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:39Z
The result was Delete spamvertisement. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page seems like advertisement, with prices included. No mention of notability other than that it is a Disney promotion. Page should be shortened and merged or deleted. Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Bucketsofg 02:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded article, but I'd like some comments as to whether this page should stay. Axiomm 22:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article kept, early closure after nomination withdrawn, all other proposals were speedy keep -- The Anome 13:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost deleted this as an advertisement. It seems to do little but promote the magazine/website. This http://www.inc.com?partner=wikipedia also disturbs me (look in the article). Wikipedia is not their partner last time I checked... I'm thinking that link was designed to figure out how many page views the company was getting from wikipedia, though I could be wrong. I did not delete due to the fact that the article has been around a while. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then make this a speedy keep, I was wondering if I was missing something here. Thanks! —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rlevse 20:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scrypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I've tried to find sources, and come to the conclusion that this entire article is original research. It's documenting a style of poetry that simply isn't documented anywhere. I've looked for sources that document "netcees", "textcees", "kistyling" (the original spelling in the original version of the article), "kick-backs", "Richard Corey", and (of course) "scrypt" and "scryptology", and come up entirely empty handed. There is nothing to support the content of this article, which is a novel analysis and history of things that happen on World Wide Web discussion fora, being written and first published directly in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor, contrary to our Wikipedia:No original research policy. That is not what Wikipedia is for. The proper place for this content is a journal article in one of the several peer-reviewed academic journals that cover literature and poetry, or even a book, so that this style of poetry becomes documented.I found several sources on the history and structure of rap poetry. But they support none of the content of this article, that subject is in any case a different one (according to this article, at any rate), none of this content is useful for expanding our coverage of rap poetry (because it is original research), and rap poetry is already dealt with in our article on rapping. There's no documentation that supports the assertion that this is even an alternative name for rap poetry, thus no support even for a redirect. Uncle G 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Rlevse 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And let me elaborate, and clarify, my previous comments. First, Notability is a GUIDELINE, and carries with it far less weight than a policy, and even as a Guideline, its meaning and application here is hotly disputed, as the Notability article's history of reversions and extensive revisions can attest to. As for Reliable sources, they are being added at this point, so this process of deletion was a bit premature. - Nhprman List 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 14:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was recreated after first Prod deletion, so now I'm brining it here. It's not a real term, only a slang term used in a few sources. Does not qualify as encyclopedic per WP:NEO. Probably not suitable for wikitionary either. Also remember to delete redirect page Craplets since the page was copied from there (should have been moved). Danski14 17:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Especially not for obsolete software. Article was prodded, but tag was removed. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Creating filters in photoshop 5.5--the text in Filter Factory was copied from Creating filters in photoshop 5.5. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Veinor (talk to me) 23:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Superfluous information - already in the album articles. Unencyclopaedic Spearhead 18:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Adam Cuerden talk 03:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam and la pagina es esutpido Raptor022 20:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was temporarily hold off on deletion Adam Cuerden talk 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another "secret society" of which nothing can be verified. [Check Google hits] Not one Google hit for the name. Even the article itself states that the information is speculative and based on rumours and legends (i.e. some people kinda think it might exist). Contested prod(s). Delete due to lack of evidence. ... discospinster talk 23:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted by User:Uncle G as advertising. Non-admin closure per WP:DPR. Resolute 06:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising for a Search Engine Optimization professional. No sources, no notability. Watchsmart 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wizardman 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V. Lacking multiple secondary sources. The topic itself is entirely unencyclopedic. If anyone wants to keep this material, it should be on a gaming wiki, not here. --- RockMFR 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.
The result was Delete. The "keep" advocate(s) didn't add anything to the discussion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:37Z
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Cannot verify the claims of any national tours. Nv8200p talk 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Divamanhughes 19:27, 28 February 2007
The result was Merge to Armanious family massacre. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:35Z
Armanious is not a notable figure outside the murder. As nom my vote is to merge into Armanious family massacre AniMate 03:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:33Z
Subject of article does not meet guidelines for notability per WP:MUSIC. Not on a major label or major indie label. No national tours. No significant press Nv8200p talk 03:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GobtaNIndia 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
Divamanhughes 19:27, 28 February 2007
These 3 links to Alternative Press's website all document that Action Action is a national touring band: http://altpress.com/news/473.htm http://altpress.com/news/183.htm http://altpress.com/news/927.htm Divamanhughes 16:45, 2 March 2007
log
The result was Redirect to Solar variation#Solar variation theory which attributes ideas to reputable scientists and is properly sourced, and presents historical research and quantitative data. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-28 05:55Z
A near-textbook case of synthesis as proscribed in Unpublished synthesis of published material. The small amount of factual material in the article is duplicated almost precisely from Climate of Mars. Article serves no purpose other than synthesis, original research, and POV fork. Raymond Arritt 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment by nom: Google Scholar search for the phrase "solar system warming" returns zero (0) hits.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:30Z
Article claims notability, but nothing is sourced and doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB criteria, at least not that I can discern. RJASE1 Talk 04:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 04:27Z
Not enough third party ghits to be considered notable. I suspect WP:OR and WP:COI especially since the only contribution of the author is this page.Peter Rehse 04:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant original research. Not a single source provided. There is not such a language. The title itself is in contradiction with the lead sentence: "Adjar language... is a dialect of Georgian language." The rest of the article is virtually unreadable.--KoberTalk 05:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong delete as a nom.--KoberTalk 06:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since its a off shoot of another language it should stay 100% it just needs to be expanded. Artaxiad 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim beck
The result was Delete. We're still a little short of time, but not by much. I don't see this debate suddenly changing course. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list we cannot possibly hope to write well. This has got to be the longest Wikipedia list I have ever seen, and it's probably, at best, 5% complete. There is an entire genre of writing called Historical fiction which exists to portray real people in fictional contexts. Even keeping the list down to figures prominently featured in the works, this would still imply that every Historical novel written should be listed on the page at least a half-dozen or so times. And of course, the list does not stick to the limits set in the introduction, but has grown beyond all reason. There were 28 listings, for instance, of Family Guy, which I guarantee does not really feature any real person prominently, with the possible exception of Adam West (which by the way is not listed). What this article is, really, is about a hundred trivia articles rolled into one. The page has been listed on AfD previously: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Litefantastic Files and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of real people appearing in fictional context. It was kept in both cases, but the problems with the article have only gotten worse. I'd mark it with a cleanup tag, but I honestly can't think what would make this a reasonable article. Forking out sections based on what kind of real people appear doesn't seem much better. Perhaps an article featuring only older works? But that seems arbitrary, and is a heck of a lot of work to distil from this article. We could restrict to only books, or only movies, but this wouldn't cut down the list much... and we could try to restrict to only particuarly important works, but systemic bias will kill us there. I see deletion as the only way to fix the situation. Mangojuicetalk 05:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Barbershop Harmony Society. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:46Z
Contested prod. This appears to be one of many area organisations of the Barbershop Harmony Society which organises activities much along the lines of the parent organisation and acts as a regional feeder to the BHS competitions. It does not appears to pass WP:ORG in that "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article...". Ohconfucius 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 14:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single reliable source Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Prior Nomination. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted and salted Agathoclea 12:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non Notable throwtogether tag team. Similar to Austin and Michaels or Triple H and Steve Austin, among many others. No reason to believe the team is going to last. BuyAMountain 06:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:44Z
I realize that some of these justifications are highly conditional and might not occur with great regularity. But that's the whole point of Wikipedia: It's VAST! There's room for stuff like this, to fill in the gaps where a conventional encyclopedia might not be able to help. So I vote "keep". Applejuicefool 16:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable losing contestant on American Idol 1. Default keep from previous nomination in May 2005, which appears to rely heavily on a "he was seen on TV and therefore must be notable" and "wait and see" arguments. We've waited, and so far have not seen anything. Clearly has not done anything of note in the intervening period. The subject's own website only has an active homepage saying "AJ has current taken on many new exciting projects, please come back soon." It's time to call "time". Ohconfucius 07:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:42Z
I am also nominating the following related page:
Both are academy players who have never played for the first team and are not considered first team squad players. Previous AFD on Fagan approx 8 months ago was closed as "no consensus" after only two people !voted ChrisTheDude 08:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to American Idol (season 1). --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Losing contestant on American Idol 1, and album. The subject appears not to have had notable achievements since his appearance on the show. One "top 20 hit" (out of 4 singles) was scored on a small subset of the national Billboard charts, and I feel he does not pass WP:MUSIC. Ohconfucius 08:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. "Deletionism ruining Wikipedia" is not a reason to keep an article - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Coredesat 14:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable losing contestant on American Idol 2. Appears to have sunk without a trace since the show. The subject's article remains a pathetic stub since its creation in June 2005. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete per not a directory of people who have appeared on American Idol. Ohconfucius 08:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 02:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated Idol 3 contestant who has gone back to school. Fails WP:MUSIC. I won't expect to be hearing from her for at least 3 years. Ohconfucius 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Durham District School Board. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:39Z
According to the criteria on WP:SCHOOL, this article lacks any sources.
It is also purely trivial coverage: basically just a directory entry, mainly it's floor layout, sports teams, etc. Directory information and nothing encyclopediac.
It also is a promotional article, with unsourced lines like "In Whitby the school is known as one of the better schools for high achieving students." thrown in excessively. SakotGrimshine 08:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 02:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Early eliminated Idol 3 contestant and currently a narrator in a theatrical production. Some may argue that an appearance on Leno would make her notable by default. However, I would maintain that she just had her 5 minutes of spotlight. Delete per wikipedia is not a directory of former Idol contestants. Ohconfucius 08:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus defaults to keep. No Guru 04:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated contestant on Idol 3. Dropped by Madonna's record label (Maverick) when his recorded was greeted by appalling sales (but apparently a top 10 hit on the Jazz chart, he has since gone back to school, so I wouldn't expect to hear from him again for a few years. Delete per wikipedia is not a directory of ex-Idol contestants. Ohconfucius 08:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you are just trying delete american idol references.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:38Z
A student-made film that is of no significant importance to an encyclopedia. Edit: (I'm not sure if I'm allowed to edit my own description) May I note that a major contributor to the article has removed the afd tag and added this threat: "If this wiki is requested for deletion again, we will list every possible article we can find that does not have a historical interest." RazorICEtalk 09:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
contributor rebuttal -
"Leet Films is upset about the deletion controversy. We personally feel that there is no harm in having a wiki article about our little movie that alot of people seem to like. If you don't like it, I'm very sorry."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.222.235 (talk • contribs)
~Matticus TC 09:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First things first. I was notified to not delete comments. No comments were ever deleted.
I will respond to both arguments.
(Zero independent sources, so fails WP:V. - Matticus)
If you want independent sources, we'll gladly include a section of viewer responses with opinions.
(Non notable student film, no use to an encyclopedia, etc. etc.) I feel unnecessarily targeted in the sense that there are a countless number of wikipedia articles that aren't "notable" or of "encyclopedic value", yet simply because our movie isn't known nationally means that it has to be deleted. What is notable? What is encyclopedic value?
Encyclopedia's don't include intense publication information about the comic book "Bones" for one thing *sneeeeematticuszeessss*. Nor do encyclopedias include articles about Star Wars, television shows, magazines, or popular websites like Myspace. With this in mind, and also with the fact that articles, like the ones I mentioned, DO exist on Wikipedia; I think that your argument that Cop Movie is not of "Encyclopedic Value" is irrelevant due to the fact that Wikipedia does not work that way (despite how much you guys wish it did).
As to the notable part of the argument, the definition of notable is "worthy of note or notice".
As a teenager, I know how hard it is to concentrate on getting something done. Whether it be schoolwork or a short story for some geek fantasy forum that you guys go to. I cannot begin to tell you how difficult it was for me to convince a group of teenagers to help me do a 25 minute movie. After convincing them, we took time out of our schedules after school, everyday, for about a week straight. We came to the school on the weekends. We didn't eat lunch with our friends. We did whatever we could to meet our goal and personal deadline, which we did. And although it isn't the best movie in the would, we put a hell of an effort in it and got it done when everyone told us we couldn't.
Now...is that not notable?
~ Karl
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatcopmovieguy (talk • contribs)
If you can say "yes" to any of these, then your film may well be considered notable, if you can verify the claims.
You mention viewer responses you might provide, who are the viewers? Comments from friends you have shown the film to won't make the film notable. Jules1975 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - article created by an apparent sock of a banned user (Mykungfu). Creating this article, more than once, was a favorite pastime of MKF. This speedy closure is not meant to preclude re-creation of this article by a user in good standing. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claimed to be the first African-American Greek letter fraternity. A prior article was deleted twice based on reason which had little to do with notability (see 1st Afd, 2nd AfD). The decision was upheld on review, but the article was userfied on request and in this new form reintroduced into article space. This AfD is to decide whether the prior problems have been resolved with this version and, if remediable, fix remaining problems, and also, if the sources are sufficient to write a neutral article and support the claims. I am currently neutral, but I might form an opinion later. ~ trialsanderrors 09:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:36Z
Fails to establish notability. Being a 23-year old young Tory who has written for a Tory blog and appeared a Tory online TV station is not sufficient notability. Nssdfdsfds 09:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Wizardman 03:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article over a year ago, mainly to get this list off College football. If I had then the knowledge of Wikipedia policy I do now, I would have simply deleted the material as indiscriminate information. The intro provides no context, and makes no assertion that this information is important or useful. If you check the history, you'll see that almost all of the activity since I created the article has been housekeeping. In short, I don't think a list of schools that haven't done something notable is notable. Djrobgordon 09:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, and even if there were evidence that this was used widely, it would probably be merged to Mathematical induction. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:31Z
This article appears to be non-notable and useless. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Inductive symbol. JRSpriggs 09:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:29Z
Dicdef with a bit of WP:OR. While I personally agree with the sentiment of the text, it reads like a personal essay... in fact, it is a personal essay. Sorry, not encyclopedic. Duja► 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. Duja► 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, on a more thorough research, the concept was recognized by several anthropological/historical studies. here, some more, book search. It might be worth expansion indeed. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Duja► 14:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Melanotan. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:28Z
Unecessary and unhelpful disambiguation that complicates access to information about this hormone. The parent article Melanotan is quite stubbish itself already and there's no need to have breakout articles about the two versions of Melanotan particularly as there is already the Bremelanotide article which essentially covers virtually alll of the same material as Melanotan II. (→Netscott) 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Melanotan. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:28Z
Unecessary and unhelpful disambiguation that complicates access to information about this hormone. The parent article Melanotan is quite stubbish itself already and there's no need to have breakout articles about the two versions of Melanotan particularly as there is already the Bremelanotide article which essentially covers virtually alll of the same material as Melanotan II. (→Netscott) 11:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. – Steel 20:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic: I consider this a candidate for the translation of a non existing chapter of a potential German (!) book for military experts. (forgotten to translate the title?) Habibie 16:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC) I wanted to point to the difference between chapters of books and Encycledia-Articles. Editing an encyclopedia is deciding upon the extent/complexity/circumfence of the language in which it is written, isn't it? Was that poor, before we knew about this new item? This is what I mean by unencyclopedic: There's so much, that might be interesting - we decide whether it's worth creating a new word for it (borrowed from ... see Loanword) Habibie 19:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – Steel 19:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable internet phenomenon relating to a living person. Mainly concerns a U-tube video. Unreferenced. No need to have articles poking fun at people of borderline notability. WjBscribe 11:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- actionable as unencyclopedic, but if evaluated only on issues of privacy or sympathy would be a keep. Editorial review will provide little or no equitable remedy to this guy's WP:BASICHUMANDIGNITY :) —Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-03-02 13:00Z
The result was Redirect to Daron Malakian. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:26Z
Little information is known about the band with no new information in months, with no sign of an album or a performance. I think it should be deleted, and it can be recreated if/when something is actually happening with the band. Joltman 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:58Z
not notable - probable self-promotion Deb 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, borderline G11 speedy deletion candidate. --Coredesat 14:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article about a school with no evidence for notability – Tivedshambo (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:24Z
Non-notable bio. Suspected auto bio. Verging on spam. -- RHaworth 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied G5 --Golbez 13:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page does not meet notability requirements, and there are several watson parks all over the US Google · AO Talk 13:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:23Z
This Wikipedia article is the only Google hit for its own title, external link is broken, no other verifiable reference given, and article is the only contribution of its creator, User:Mrbob60. Possible hoax? The Anome 13:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:23Z
A "not-english" tag was added in April 2006 and nearly a year later it still is untranslated Chesdovi 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:22Z
I'm not certain this individual meets the criteria for WP:BIO. The article lacks sources and is possibly an advertisement. sunstar nettalk 13:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page deleted by a prior AFD. Sources produced at deletion review are of debatable quality. Relisted for debate on whether the sources listed in the deletion review are sufficient to have an article. Please read both discussions before opining. I have no opinion, this is a technical nomination. GRBerry 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. The article lacks WP:V and WP:RS. While future projects look hopeful, his career so far doesn't look all that interesting so far. I Prod'ed this one, but the original author removed the tag without making any improvements. Rklawton 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding / Evheristo. Xronikos polys.
28 February 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep and rename to Adaptations of The Picture of Dorian Gray. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:18Z
Article substantially edited during an AFD at a prior title. That AFD closed as delete, but at deletion review the closing admin agreed that it should be relisted to have a discussion solely of the new article. Technical nomination from me, I have no opinion. GRBerry 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Hilton family. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:16Z
NN. Simply being a member of the Hilton family does not entitle someone to an article. Article makes no other claim of notabilty. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 14:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bio about a host of an online interview program. No non-trivial sources given, Google news and books search gave 0 hits. Doesn't seem that notable for an encyclopedia. feydey 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nom rightly drew attention to lack of verification. This has been addressed sufficiently to merit retention of the article, but I note and agree with observations that sourcing could still be improved and would benefit from translations into English and sources in English. Tyrenius 05:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in question; multiple, non trivial sources needed to establish notability Bus stop 14:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Rouge the Bat. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:14Z
First off, the title is a bit fancrufty. The Sonic the Hedgehog comic series should never be referred to as the "Archie Comics". Also, Rouge is very much a minor character in both the game and comic universes. All the data from both storylines could be easily combined into one article as it was. I understand that this was done because of the creator's concerns of page length, but a good editing of the main article itself could sort that out easily. (It's filled with fancruft) In fact, the main Rouge article could also go up for deletion, but that'll be considered another time.
I would say that the only characters in need of separate articles between the storylines are Sonic and Knuckles. The latter having has a 32 issue series of his own. GrandMasterGalvatron 15:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Amy Rose. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:14Z
As if the Rouge article wasn't crufty enough, Amy is even more so! Amy is a minor character in the games, and an extremely minor character in the comics. She definitely does not warrant two articles. In addition to that, Amy's comic self is a direct clone of her game self...there's hardly any difference between the versions at all. I'm a devoted reader, and I can't think of any..of course, she's mostly background filler anyway.
Actually, the Sonic Character articles could use a good trimming in numbers. As for this one, everything that could be said here can just as well be said in Amy's game article. GrandMasterGalvatron 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Shadow the Hedgehog. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:15Z
These just get worse and worse. Rouge and Amy were bad enough, but Shadow??? There is no difference at all between his game and comic incarnations. In fact, there was a recent issue involving him which was basically his game in a nutshell. Also, the article itself is little more than a plot synopsis. You could add about two lines to Shadow's game character article and say everything about his comic self with said lines...or even LESS!
Yeah, I seem to be on a roll today but it needs to be done. The Sonic series of articles is plagued with fancruft, and someone's gotta be bold about it! XD GrandMasterGalvatron 15:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged for speedy A7, but asserts notability. Bringing it here for review. – Steel 15:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:12Z
This band doesn't seem to be notable; there are no citations or external links in the article and a Google search only brings up the Wikipedia page. --aguasde13013 kickin' it just for you 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article David Szydlowski. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was Speedy delete -- Renesis (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable businessman; fails WP:BIO. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 16:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools in lieu of deletion. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:09Z
Not notable WP:SCHOOLS3 Jemather 16:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being the editor of an on-line publication does not make one notable. There's far from enough criteria here to pass muster. Capnpen 17:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 14:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. It may violate conflict of interest policy as the subject appears to be the author of the page. Previously proposed for deletion, and no reason was given for reversion of proposed deletion tag.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:05Z
Trivial and redundant. "List of United States Presidents by first name" (AFD) and "List of United States Presidents by middle name" (AFD) were deleted for the same reason. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Sources were added. PeaceNT 06:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty solid example of what WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms deems inappropriate. A dicdef on a neologism "coined by members of an early, private e-mail list", and a bunch of unreferenced OR describing its spread through the internet "autism rights community". No effort to find sources has been made since the article was tagged as unreferenced over half a year ago. Krimpet 17:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn, as people have now found many reliable sources of this term being used as a concept in scientific circles I guess it's worth keeping, as long as the OR is cleaned up big time and the article's focus is shifted to actual scientific use of the term rather than its use as a wacky neologism by autistic folks. Krimpet 02:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:04Z
A redundant and incomplete article on List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters. Sr13 (T|C) 17:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 09:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regular journalist - (not senior staffer, editor), not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (journalists) Rothko65 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:03Z
Unsigned local band, all links are dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baligant (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:NOT and for being a link farm. AFDing intead of Speedy since it's been around for some time and someone may be able to salvage/justify salvaging. The list of actually notable MCs seems to consist of these, as the only ones with articles. So, WP:NOT a collection of information or link farm. The article has been edited 20 times total since May 2006 and it's been nothing but a link/spam farm the whole way. Not needed, deleteable. Thanks... - Denny 17:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 05:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only sites I can find on this look like patent nonsense, or are on yogurt. [23] [24]. Probably patent nonsense, at best simply non-notable. Adam Cuerden talk 18:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bioculture is an emerging field of study that seeks to synthesize biological and cultural anthropological paradigms and theories.
Source: Leatherman, Thomas L., and Alan H. Goodman. 1997. Expanding the biocultural synthesis toward a biology of poverty. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 102(1): 1-3.
Bioculture is a field of study that synthesizes biological and cultural perspectives in the fields of anthropology and human biology.
Source: Dufour, Darna L. 2006. Biocultural approaches in human biology. American Journal of Human Biology, 18(1): 1-9.
The result was Keep per WP:MUSIC. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sethian (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Unfortunatly nothing has been added for some time. This band while being great to someone does not fall into the catagory of Very short articles providing little or no context, nor can it be considered noatable. Mystar 05:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, Pokécruft. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A description of a very minor aspect of a series of video games. It's essentially a description of a single minor status screen. There's no possibility for references to establish notability; bear in mind, this is one single status screen.
This was prodded, but deprodded without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Kyriakos 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:02Z
non notable work under Wikipedia:Notability (books) Rothko65 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:01Z
This album fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. It is a non-notable album by a non-notable artist. Shimaspawn 18:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person, 600 google hits [29] Ozzykhan 18:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The article makes a claim of notability, that this message board is "The largest ezboard message board on the internet", but the source it cites does not seem to clearly support that claim, and the article otherwise lacks the multiple independent sources that would help it pass WP:WEB. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They have since supported the claim. That should make you happy.
We're working on it! Don't be meenies :(
We just added video evidence of JJB on Extra.
We didn't claim largest message board, we claimed largest EzBoard message board.
And are you even qualified to make that statement?
The result was keep John254 05:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most books do not merit separate articles devoted to them. An individual essay being more slight than a monograph, it would, a fortiori, be the rare essay that is sufficiently influential or widely commented-upon or in some other way exceptionally noteworthy to merit a separate article. This essay falls below that threshold, and moreover fails WP:N --Rrburke(talk) 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 12:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a cut and paste biography that doesn't appear to establish notability Neonblak 19:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus - defaults to keep (all). I encourage those editors who expressed a desire to expand these stubs to do so now. No Guru 04:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Tony Drake, Steven Lyndon, Joey Munoz, Markus Riot, Gilbert Aguilera, Tony Ramos and Lil' Cholo. Contested prods. All eight articles are sub-stubs with no references, assertions of notability or substantial information. All eight articles have gone over three weeks since their creation with no improvements. There are currently several hundred stub articles relating to professional wrestling, 483 of them biographical articles - Category:Professional wrestling biography stubs. McPhail 19:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Alias episode along with all other Alias eps already have their own plot summaries on the season pages. The page for this episode is locate at Alias episodes (season 5). The plot summary there is far more concise. Shimaspawn 20:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magistrand Sign Here! My Talk 20:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – Steel 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly unencyclopaedic, no particular use as an article, and I believe user has blanked several times across two simiarily names accounts and one single-purpose account. RHB Talk - Edits 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, the article is not nominated for deletion but for merging. Hiding Talk 20:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant with ableism. Merge and redirect. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 20:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Implementation inheritance
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 03:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated information that is listed on other, more appropriate pages. Wikipedia is not a website that blantly creates pages with lists on them. I don't know whether this is true, but would it fall under speedy-deletion?? Davnel03 20:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:55Z
I'm am nominating this for afd on the basis that it reads like blatent nonsense and vandalism and is likely a hoax. Shimaspawn 21:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:53Z
I cannot find any evidence that this novel exists by googling. I am including the related article Patrick C. Easley in this AfD. FisherQueen (Talk) 21:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:52Z
No sources given. Google search turns up 0 hits. Jvhertum 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:52Z
Term used once, in one book, to refer to 9/11 terrorists. Doesn't seem worthy of its own article. NawlinWiki 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:51Z
Page is about two very non-notable people. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. – Steel 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is on a few comedic cartoon shorts on The Colbert Report that satirize superhero cartoons. It is hardly notable enough for its own article. dposse 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteable TV tower that doesn't even exist anymore. Wikipedia is not an FCC directory of every broadcasting tower to have ever existed in the United States (one exists already on fcc.gov anyway) Descendall 22:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding orphaned AfD nomination without prejudice. --Descendall 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Burden of proof is on those advocating Keep, and they haven't even attempted to address the concerns being raised. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Richhoncho 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been prodded twice, each time removed by a comet18 and comet20 (which I can only assume is the same contributor being the only ones who have contributed to the article. Both have added to other articles, which has been removed as vandalism (example Yeti, added the words “The Yeti just straight beats off all the time”) I cannot find a single reference for Jacob Engelman Meils save for a student achievement for 2006 at The College of Wooster. Pegged as a hoax by me irrespective of the reference now given. Firm delete--Richhoncho 23:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are you going to suggest deleting the page without even checking out the reference? It's not a hoax, do your homework. And can you prove to me that the Yeti doesn't straight beat off all the time? The burden of proof is on you. Show me ONE picture, just one, where the Yeti isn't beating off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet20 (talk • contribs)
You're checking the online edition of Routledge which is different than their actual published encyclopedias. A reference was left and I suggest you check it before you get all up in arms about this. It would be against what we're working toward here at Wikipedia to delete an article with a reputable reference. And Chris Sabo would be the first to admit to you that he beats off all the time, and if you want I can provide a reference for that too. --140.103.193.66 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't we be better served focusing on the facts instead of this partisan bickering? Nobody has addressed the reference seriously. --Comet20 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can prove that the Yeti doesn't beat off all the time.--Comet20 15:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of details of a non-notable set of cards, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, prod removed, Delete-- Jaranda wat's sup 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, because I am the person who researched this for Beckett, along with Rich Klein (I'm sure you've heard of him if you read Beckett). There is no question that there are more important sets than this, but it is notable nonetheless. How about I combine this article into another baseball article, or create one devoted only to notable sets? That way the encyclopedia can be expanded with other sets included, not just 1 - there's no Wikipedia rule that says articles can't be long. Look, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, and I just wanted to contribute something useful that I could expand on further as time went on. I will also remove the checklist (if thats the only way I can save my article). I only request to mave my page preserved long ebough for me to make the changes (another day or two) because I am quite busy with work now. I appreciate your consideration of my offer.IBHMC 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:49Z
Some non-notable writing an article on himself. – Steel 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected. DS 23:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a direct copy/paste of the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Shimaspawn 23:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion via WP:PROD, somewhat pointy and almos certain to be contested, but unquestionably a valid rationale: unsourced fancruft. We really could do without these endless directories compiled form primary sources for the sole benefit of people who already know it anyway, because nobody else will ever care. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by NawlinWiki . —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:48Z
Prod removed so brought for AfD. Unreferenced, self-issued records , no claim of notability through independent citations. use of WP as advertising space, fails COI, probably copy. Delete from me, Richhoncho 23:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:47Z
Dictionary definition for an obscure term Alex Bakharev 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The article should probably have been tagged for Speedy Deletion, rather than being fixed in this manner, but it gets the job done. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article exists only to disparage its subject, BLP concerns, we don't have articles on any other Newsnight researchers. Catchpole 23:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion by admin Irishguy as the article consisted mostly of nonsense. Non-admin closing of orphaned AFD per WP:DPR--TBCΦtalk? 06:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ((prod))'d this article earlier. It deals with some protologisms, a subject generally more suited to Urban Dictionary than to Wiktionary or Wikipedia. Appears not to be verifiable. The author was a bit put out by my prod'ing the article. I won't offer an opinion as that might appear vindictive. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 01:46Z
I don't believe that Ms. Osborne meets the biographical criteria for inclusion. The "external links" list are lists of names, with little or no reference to the importance of the subject. User:Jerzy has removed a pretty significant list of things that appear to be more along the lines of promotion rather than information: those are listed on the article's talk page. Joyous! | Talk 23:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7 - NYC JD (make a motion) 23:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established, probably an autobiography Alex Bakharev 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
`
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
his paintings are for sale in one gallery, his work was reviewed in a free weekly paper. and he was quoted for his opinion in one article in the Weekly Standard. I don't believe he passes WP:Notability delete Cornell Rockey 21:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
</noinclude>
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 03:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This autobiography does not meet the Wikipedia policy on attribution, and does not have verifiable sources demonstrating the notability of the subject. TheMindsEye 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who don't know since last November I have had a wikipedia page. Today I discovered several things. 1 the page was vandalized. and 2) shortly after I fixed the vandalism, it was nominated for deletion. I'm sad about this because I don't think I have a chance in this white bitter cold world of saving the page. so I'm totally depressed and will soon drowned my sorrows in bubbely. If you have a Wikipedia account I ask for your vote to save my page if you don't have an account get one and add your vote. This is what I ask. There is only a 5 day window for this so please hurry.
as for the notability of Walt Sorensen as an artist, I shall quote from Wikipedia:Notability (artists) “notability as an artist is defined by the notability of his/her art. Notable art is: b) A piece acquired by government (national, state or major city) and put on public display.” Under this guide line Walt Sorensen has 6 notible art pieces. The 5 pieces that were displayed durring the Nantou are part of a permanent collection on public display in the Nantou city hall. The Last piece was a photograph of West Valley City including the E-center in West Valley City, this piece was commisioned by West Valley and 2 Prints were made of it. One is on public display in the Nantou Taiwan city hall, the other is on Public Display in West Valley City’s City Hall. Thanks for getting me to look this information up, this should be added to the Walt Sorensen article photodude 02:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Old website that does not make any claims to notability. Original website doesn't even exist anymore. ― El Cid ∴∵ 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]