The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article about an Iranian-American student organization has been created several times, the last time in May. At that time, the creator contacted me and asked me how to stop it from getting speedy deleted again. I explained about notability, reliable sources and such. However, there has been no further work on the article in the two-and-a-half months since and I don't see how there could be, as I have been unable to find any reliable sources discussing the organization. I almost tagged this for speedy again, but the claims made about being on the radio show seem to put it just past WP:CSD#A7. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism apparently invented solely for this exhibition/film. At first I considered merging it into phantogram (which I'm currently in the process of fixing up and getting decent references for), but the only source given is primary, so there's a problem meeting WP:V here. There may also be a WP:COI issue too, as the article creator (User:Billycowie) is the same name as the creator of the named film as stated in this edit to the phantogram article. Without showing there have been other moving phantograms and that this term is used to describe them generally, I can't see how this can be a viable article. ~Matticus TC 23:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a1 empty, see WP:NEO. NawlinWiki 04:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:NEO. This term is not in wide currency, and has only recently been coined. In fact, the article cited was written today. MagneticFlux 23:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little claim of notability in article. Contested prod. Fabrictramp 23:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 03:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable hotel. No sources for notability, just another place, one hotel of thousands in the USA. Freedomeagle 23:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw this, looks like I was wrong. Sorry! Freedomeagle 21:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Oli Filth 23:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll point out that notability does in fact need to be asserted. That's why we have CSD A7. Wizardman 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Oli Filth 23:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by the nominator. Non-admin closure. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn by user who nominated. Page redirected.
Orphaned article whose content is already available in other articles. See ER (TV Series) and List of supporting characters in ER. These two articles cover all the information available in this orphaned article. Josh 22:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A long unformatted list of former Show Biz Pizza locations. Should be deleted per WP:NOT#DIR or maybe userfied. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points all. But I do want to point out, there is some confusion going on here. I am not the author of this information, nor do I run any websites. I did create the "Showbiz Pizza Place" wikipedia entry. I am actually for this deletion, as I do not see the point of a list such as this on the main article, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. But tried to create a separate page, so that I wasn't just arbitrarily deleting works that others might have saw fit to use. Showbizpage 03:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nomination, author's arguments are valid. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable band, sources look somewhat iffy. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable and currently non existent website. No evidence available to confirm notability as a work in progress. Daniel J. Leivick 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Hurricane Juan by me, no need to keep discussion open. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article already exists on this subject at Hurricane Juan. Oli Filth 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 03:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this term is in use anywhere (Google returns 0 hits). I can't access the one paper referenced, but I would imagine its author won't have named a technique after themself. Oli Filth 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. ELIMINATORJR 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable member of the city council of a minor American city. Corvus cornix 20:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted and salted by User:EliminatorJR, user blocked indefinitely by User:LessHeard_vanU. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody's personal essay. Corvus cornix 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article either does not assert notability or the person is not notable. The person has only released three porn DVDs. No mention of any awards or any notable acts. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category exists, factually innacurate and unnecessary. U-Mos 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax. Text modified from the Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark article, and cites suspicious references, including an apparent hoax page designed to resemble a profile page on the official website of the Greek Royal Family.[10] No sources could be found to verify the article content, and another editor changed the article to state that the subject does not exist.[11] Dancter 20:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a hoax. None of the people, and few of the companies, listed in the article have ANY google hits whatsoever. In addition, the original author, User:Pgrosrenaud, created a silly vanity article (which only admins can see, as it was speedily deleted), Paul grosrenaud. I find it extremely unlikely that everyone involved in this family is so successful, yet no one has heard of them. I left a message to this effect on the original author's talk page, with no response. barneca (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find no evidence that this footballer even exists, playing for Australia, Jamaica, Samoa, or any other team. There appears to be a Diego A. Guerrero who plays for Deportivo Táchira in Venezuela, but this is not him. Delete as failing WP:V unless this can be sourced. --Kinu t/c 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect→Cut It Out (song). PeaceNT 03:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needless disambiguation page. Only notable article on the disambig page is the single by Nelly. Admc2006 20:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete for the 4th time, just as AfD was made. Non-admin closure. (By the way, could an admin salt this article? It's been nuked four times now.) Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 19:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of WP:NOT#DIR, this is a business advertising page. J-stan Talk 19:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 16:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very few sources, seemingly arbitrary definition of independence, claiming continuity between modern day nations such as Ukraine, Bulgaria and Montenegro and ancient empires spread over same or similar territory that have little to do with the modern states. I cannot see how this could possibly be maintained in an NPOV and factual fashion. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed with words to the effect of "one notable show spoofs another one, what's not notable?" However, neither the notability of Scrubs nor the notability of A Charlie Brown Christmas make this subject inherently notable. There need to be reliable sources attesting to the independent notability of this item specifically and there do not appear to be any. Lots of blog and YouTube entries and Wikipedia mirrors, nothing reliable. Otto4711 19:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete — TKD::Talk 19:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable per WP:BIO. He does not hold an elected position that automatically confers notablility and the sources used do not establish notability through other guidelines. The Oregonian item is an editorial, the picture is only a picture, and the Yamhill County website is not independent of the subject as he works for them. Aboutmovies 19:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protested Speedy, recreated. I've decided to go for extra opinions on this instead of Speedying a third time. I Speedied this twice as G11, advertising. But it's also got no assertion of notability, let alone any sourcing to verify any notability. TexasAndroid 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is similar in structure and scope to these others found on the Virtual Learning Environment Page:
WebCT and Desire2Learn are also commercial based LMS's and similar to this page on the CyberExtension. Should these other pages be removed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varezzi (talk • contribs)
The result was Keep as a dab page. ELIMINATORJR 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably non-notable terminology. Googling for "proto-domain" + organism brings up precisely two hits. Oli Filth 00:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close per WP:SNOW. Pascal.Tesson 19:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable pedophilia promotion page. We dont do that, any useful info (ie the fact of the organisation's existence) is already covered at Pro-pedophile activism, SqueakBox 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scorch with primordial fire, per nominator. El_C 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Award without assertion of notabilty. Group granting award does not appear to be notable enough for its own page, so is unclear how their award would be notable. Improbcat 19:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Virtual machine#Machine aggregation. MastCell Talk 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear what this concept is other than another name for virtualization. No established reason this term is used vs. the industry standard term Cander0000 04:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vanity page that appears to have been composed by the subject or an agent of his Thirteenity 18:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed with a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale. The article fails WP:PLOT, being little more than a plot summary of the book with no reliable sources indocating any real-world notability for the storyline. The fact that other articles exist for other Sandman stories is not relevant to this AFD. Otto4711 18:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, though more references in the article would certainly help. — TKD::Talk 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual charts for one particular radio stations? Let alone individual articles about all of the songs at number one for every year of the station's existence? This is not encyclopedic, it's just radiocruft. Corvus cornix 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Include the following:
The result was Delete. ELIMINATORJR 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT#DIR Jay32183 18:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandahl 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable podcast, begun in spring 2007. Article is based entirely on primary sources; and the author (who contested a PROD) appears to have a conflict of interest, not having made any edits outside this article. Shalom Hello 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was an unremarkable local TV show. There are no references, and it's not notable enough to make it practical to find references. Shalom Hello 18:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close; WP:RFD is the second door on the left. —Angr 19:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per talk page, The pill could refer to any pill, not just one. ACBestAutograph Book 17:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC; this album doesn't even have a name or a release date yet, so this should be deleted until it is named or released.--milk the cows (Talk) 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, though a few more sources wouldn't hurt. ELIMINATORJR 15:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck isn't notable. Running a fringe view website and being interviewed once by a major news source isn't evidence of being a notable bit of history--anyone can get interviewed by major press, that act isn't notable. Maybe a website article can exist, but the leader/webmaster of some website or blog isn't notable, especially in this case. Recommend delete as a vanity article, and also note it looks like the subject worked on it too and possibly created the article as User:Chuck0? That's COI issues as well. Delete. Freedomeagle 17:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a non-notable fictional character. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character introduced in Fox promos earlier this year. Official site gone, no references from after April. Fails notability requirements. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 17:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/business/media/14adcol.html?ex=1186286400&en=e1ce8c13af54cd7a&ei=5070 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.38.153 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Moreschi Talk 16:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teen theatre-based charity in North Carolina. Unreferenced,lack of third party coverage (other than one local news story) fails WP:N. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 17:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as a copyrights violation. El_C 19:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Text written in the page is a copy of a FOX news article that contains numerous errors. In addition, the page on a single specimen of an unnamed and undescribed species, of which there is also currently no specimen number assigned to this specimen (not in a museum collection). The information currently in the article can easily be added to the Thalattosuchia page, and once the species is described and published a new page can be made for it. Having separate pages for Thalattosuchia and Thalattosuchian is confusing, especially as the thalattosuchian page is about a single specimen. Mark t young 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated expired prod. Non-notable university project. Stephen 1-800-STEVE 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. PeaceNT 03:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally speedied as spam, one of the corp folks exercising COI has protested, so to be fair, I've restored it and am sending it to AfD for wider input. Personally, I don't see notability being demonstrated per our guidelines, and the thing reads like a corporate brochure AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Moreschi Talk 16:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Laundry-list of trivial references. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep. John254 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure original research, making uncited claims of similarities to other works. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Article has been sourced and moved. Change to keep. --Eyrian 15:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
That said, that section really should be moved. Aristophanes is not popular culture. --Eyrian 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection , consisting only of bare-mention references and leading original research. Contains none of the sourced analysis of clearly confused western notions about an eastern practice that such an article needs. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, sometimes merely listing that Jehovah's Witnesses are mentioned in a particular work. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Accusations of failing WP:NOT have not been addressed. Andy, if you wish to have a copy of the article, please let me know via my talk page. Neil ╦ 12:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unacceptable (albeit short) trivia collection. Best summarized as "The president is associated with air force one, and is often portrayed as flying in it" Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
DGG (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The "vote" (which AfD is not) appears to be 9-to-5 in favor of deletion, but several opinions on both sides appear to not take this article into account at all. Several just accuse the nominator of WP:POINT violations, and one delete vote says flatly that all such articles should be deleted, without reference to policy. In favor of deletion, users cite NOT#INFO, NOR#DIR, and point out the few sources. The "keep" users state that sources must exist for this article, but it appears there are still no secondary sources on the topic at this time. Because of this, notability is not established, as María points out.
I am userfying this article to User:AndyJones/Boléro in popular culture per request. Cool Hand Luke 03:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection; merely lists times that a very popular piece of music has been played. Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was no consensus, with valid arguments being made on both sides of the issue as to how WP policies and guidelines apply. Please note: WP:FIVE is summary, not a guideline or policy page. If you're going to quote policy/guidelines, quote the actual page. Also keep in mind WP:TRIVIA which states "What makes a section "trivia", regardless of its name, is that it contains a disorganized and unselective list. A selectively-populated list with a narrow theme is not trivia, and can be the best way to present some information -- for example, a list of unobvious pop-culture references made by a television episode." AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited laundry list of brief appearances. Unacceptable trivia collection per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. —Kurykh 16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, where most entries merely consist of "wisps are an enemy/ally/monster in this game" Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was keep. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, consisting of little more than bare-mention references, imparting no understanding about popular opinion. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 19:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, best summarized as "wisps sometimes appear in fiction, often as glowing balls", with no trace of analysis. All references are merely links to primary source material where the mention is made. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was No Consensus. CitiCat ♫ 02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, consisting only of appearances with no analysis. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection/list of quotes, unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, consisting of bare-mention uses of astronomical names. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia collection, containing only brief and irrelevant mentions. Unacceptable per WP:FIVE Eyrian 17:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The result was No consensus, defaulting to Keep per references added. ELIMINATORJR 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable product brand. Speedied twice, then restored by User:Rebecca with reason "completely unjustified speedy". I fail to see how this is notable in any way, and with a short, one-sentence paragraph and a web link, this smells lik spam, which is a legit reason for speedy. However, rather than wheel war with Rebecca, I'm bringing it here AKRadeckiSpeaketh 17:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to meed WP:BAND but still iffy on notability here. Also note that the creator's name is the same name of some kind of music company, so a possible conflict of interest could be at work here. -WarthogDemon 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently working on the clean up as requested, this is my first posting so im still learning the ropes. All possible conflicts of interest have been removed from the post. However, regardless of the desire to see "notable label" this artist does meet the notable requirements stated in wikipedia guidelines. One Tree Hill episodes are 5 actually, Buddy - "More Of The Shame" - ep. #304; "Don't Go Home" - ep. #319; "Westgate" - ep. #402; "11/22" - ep. #408; "Blindsides" - ep. #415 [26]graham kurzner 1 August 2007
The result was Speedy delete a7, doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki 17:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22 Google results, and I'm not really sure deputy auditors for cities are notable. Esteffect 16:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable independent band. Only claim to notability is use of one of its songs in the independent film Life Goes On (film). NawlinWiki 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup 18:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there do not appear to be WP:RS attesting to the notability of this topic as a whole. The notability of the show doe not mean that a history of the theme songs and/or openings are also notable. Otto4711 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator, and redirect to geological engineering. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a nearly meaningless, and not terribly accurate, one-sentence stub, with no substantive edits since November 2006. This specialty is not widely recognized, and there is no parent article on Applied geophysics. Argyriou (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC) (Added later) This is a contested prod. Argyriou (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. For categorization, Category:Irish musical groups could probably be used until there are more than three groups with separate articles. — TKD::Talk 07:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List is full of non-notable bands; only three of them actually have Wikipedia articles. Features edit summaries such as "I added my friend's band". Has not changed significantly since it was created in January, 2006. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
appears to be original research intended to promote an as-yet-unpublished book, presumably by either the author of the book or his publisher, thus involving conflict of interest as well. GlassFET 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the entry. I was going to add a supporting quote from Einstein in which he talks of an 'intelligence' involved in the laws of the Universe and such - but there is probably no point. Thus, if my attempt to add NI to Wikipedia breaches rules, then go ahead and erase it forthwith. I assume that if my film and book are successful, then maybe NI will eventualy find its way on to Wikipedia. Until then... Psilocybinetic 11:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of trivia based on original research; no references provided. —tregoweth (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another directory of loosely associated trivia points that tell us nothing about Soul Train or the fiction from which the trivia is drawn. Do not merge to any other Soul Train article. Otto4711 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally speedy-deleted as a CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding an assertion of notability. Still, delete, given lack of sources and WP:V concerns. Xoloz 15:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussions to the appropriate talk page(s). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These articles on fictional characters do not satisfy WP:WAF criteria, as the only content comes from primary sources (the films themselves), where WP:WAF dictates that secondary sources are required to explore these topics in a real-world context. Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they do not meet WP:WAF criteria, either:
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not verifiable and non-notable. Case of WP:NFT with a side order of WP:NEO. A game made up by some campers at a summer camp who decided to write a wikipedia article about it. Was originally a Prod but was contested by an anonymous IP address.
Supposed "reference" book doesn't appear anywhere on any search of Amazon or the Library of Congress Online Catalog (and the lack of an ISBN raises questions). Searching Google turns up mostly links to a M*A*S*H website, with a few links to the summer camp mentioned in the photo caption. Wingsandsword 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. The suggested merge to murder ballad is not a good idea as pointed out by DGG but I take it that those in favor of the merge do see some value in the content. Also I don't think those in favor of outright deletion have solidly established that the list is OR beyond repair. Pascal.Tesson 19:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting up for deletion as the same reason as all the other problematic song lists -- failing WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR, hard to verify, overly loose criteria for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Putting up for deletion per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Has all the same problems as all the other lists of songs -- not sourced, not encyclopedic, not verified, non-notable juncture, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 14:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is a notable organization. Was once deleted on an expired prod but recreated by the same user. I'd rather get wider input this time around so that we can settle the question once and for all. Pascal.Tesson 14:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Movement is non-notable; has no independent, significant coverage about it. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated topics with a dose of "seems to be based on"-style original research. As with so many other of these sorts of lists, this one tells us nothing about the music, nothing about the fiction that uses the music, nothing about the relationship between them and nothing about the world in general. Otto4711 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Directory of loosely associated items. This collection of every time some portion of the music is used in a TV show or video game tells us nothing about the piece, nothing about the fiction from which the reference is drawn and nothing about the world in general. Otto4711 13:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was discussion temporarily suspended ~ Riana ⁂ 09:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to clean up this tangling matter, the result was temporarily suspended, forgotten about, left to lie for 22 months while the article was improved and then quietlydropped. It should be noted that closing AfDs where one has participated is a breach of protocol, but this isn't a matter that depends on the closer's discretion. Plus we already broke protocol all over the place to reach a desirable, amiable decision, which is what the rules aim for and usually fall short. It's enough to make an editor proud. --Kizor 10:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is another one of those subjects that you'd swear is a good topic for a Wikipedia article. Until you actually read what we've got, that is.
As an encyclopedia, what we need is reliable reporting of comments by biologists on the feasibility of Jurassic Park.
What we've got is a quite well written treatise, describing the beliefs of some Wikipedia editors, based on their interpretations of the movie of Jurassic Park and of some biology text books.
Sources cited are an Abstract on gene amplification and sequencing of Cretaceous period weevil DNA, another on gene sequencing far more recent mammal DNA (from the Pleistocene, that's 10,000-2,000,000 years ago), and a molecular biology textbook. None of these sources, needless to say, has any comments on the movie or the novel, so the writers are engaging in a novel synthesis from primary sources.
This is all very well, you may say, but surely it could just be cleaned up by removing the original research, locating what molecular biologists, paleontologists and the like have actually said about the film Jurassic Park, and writing about that. Fine, I say, except that in nearly eighteen months this has not yet happened. The article just fills up with the personal opinions of its editors.
The writing isn't actually that bad, and perhaps the ideas have some merit (I couldn't say because I'm neither a molecular biologist nor a paleontologist). Perhaps it should be transwikied. Wikibooks? The problem isn't the article itself, it's the existence of such an article on an encyclopedia avowedly committed to the neutral point of view. --Tony Sidaway 13:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Directory of loosely associated topics. This collection of every time a portion of the sonata shows up in a video game or TV show, or someone borrowed a chunk of it, tells us nothing about the sonata, nothing about the fiction in which the music is played, nothing about their relation to each other and nothing about the real world. Otto4711 13:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki 14:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Freedomeagle 13:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - directory of loosely associated items. This collection of every time Beethoven appears in a book or on TV or a piece he wrote is played somewhere tells us nothing about Beethoven, nothing about his works, nothing about the items from which the references are drawn and nothing about the world. Otto4711 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Moreschi Talk 16:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability for this pornstar, yet prod was removed. No coverage in reliable sources. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:PORNBIO. Valrith 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is a mishmash of "famous people who wore toupees" plus "times someone had a toupee mishap in a movie" along with a healthy dose of speculation about the future of toupee humor. Wikipedia articles are not directories of loosely associated topics and original research is forbidden. Otto4711 13:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. CitiCat ♫ 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a previous nomination ended in "no consensus" only because it was part of a mass nomination that split closing decisions Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. I believe it still fits the criteria put forth on that nomination. I cannot find much of anything that suggests a "car-crash song" is a legitimate type of song [27] Bulldog123 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, created as the only contribution from User:Havertonrulz. The article claims this was a UK TV series aired on Channel 4, and was hugely successful (although the article is cut off abruptly there and was never completed). I can find no reference to this show on Google, IMDB, or British TV resources. There also seems to be a repeated problem of an anon IP attempting to blank the page regularly - not a reason for deletion, but worth noting. Canley 12:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability for this non-notable website, but both speedy and prod removed without improvements to the article. No sources provided in over a year and a half. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails all criteria for inclusion, including WP:V and WP:WEB. Valrith 12:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:GHITS is a notoriously weak argument, for or against. Sidatio 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem here isn't whether or not the article is open-source, and I apologize if that's how you took it. The problem is you seem to have only two sources, and in one of those sources, it's not exactly clear to what extent Cumfiesta is discussed. Is it significant coverage, or just a passing mention? Even if we assume there is significant coverage to be had, we have one instance of coverage in a obscure journal and one instance of a review on a obscure website that isn't a reliable reference anyway. To me, this doesn't add up to notability.
We have here an article that has been alive for a year and a half. In that time, we have only been able to establish two weak notable sources, and a reasonably exhaustive search doesn't turn up any more. I like porn as much as the next guy (well, maybe not as much as some!), but to me, that's simply not enough. Sidatio 12:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The thebestporn.com website referenced in the article appears to be an all-inclusive database of porn sites, with no stipulation on notability. It is therefore not a reliable reference for asserting notability. —gorgan_almighty 13:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. The Miami Herald does it again — quality journalism since 1903! El_C 20:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, long article with lots of unsourced assertions, only cited source is a blog. NawlinWiki 12:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. One tangential link does not an article make. Spartaz Humbug! 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advertising. No information about notability, and a good amount of original research. Kariteh 11:38, 31 July 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)) . |
Pat Robertson and Billy Graham can teach us all something about Christian networking. Aldavid 06:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)³[reply]
The result was delete. —Kurykh 00:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually the second nomination for this page. The first time was "no consensus", although it didn't appear that way to me. This group miserably fails WP:MUSIC. First nomination discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former fat boys. Jauerback 11:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be speculation [33]. Tizio 11:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to England C, no point to keep discussion open if redirect has been made. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 12:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate, in apparent good faith, of the England C article. It does not contain any information that is already in the England C article. A merge has been suggested but there seems little point in this. Bigmike 11:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of existence - was linked from List of Saini last names, which is now deleted. Moglex 13:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP - Nabla 22:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An amusing title, which led me to dig for mentions in the press - the National Park Service gave them a brief mention here, but apart from that this association doesn't seem to have received much notice - it is still around, but I struggle to find anything remarkable about the AACS Moglex 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR 15:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Swedish anarchist with a page in [Swedish Wikipedia]]. Most notable thing claimed in article is getting arrested for antimilitaristic comments. To be honest tho, we've all been arrested for making similar comments, but we've not got articles Moglex 12:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not appear to meet the requirement for notability. Wikipedia:Notability (people) If notability cannot be provided via references this article should be deleted. ForestJay 19:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity bio of an "assistant political strategist" to an unsuccessful candidate for Congress. No sources, no notability; essentially a CV. A Traintalk 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
claims of notabilty very weak; prod deleted so now to afd NeilN 11:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable state chapter of a larger, notable organization. DECA (organization) is a notable organization, existing in thousands of schools. However, there seems to be no notability for any of the state or local chapters. No references or sources are provied to suggest any notability for Utah DECA. Metros 11:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bio without a valid claim to notability Joedoedoe 10:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice against re-creation if more nontrival, independent reliable sources appear later. — TKD::Talk 08:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be an ad for an as-yet unpublished first novel by the guy who runs the website "Pointless Waste of Time". It is described as "tentatively scheduled to be released in late Summer 2007." The author earlier distributed it through CafePress, which is basically an on-demand print shop and distribution outfit. A related AfD, from 2005, is here:
I suggest that material like this is somewhat below the radar of encyclopedia coverage. We don't even have a firm publication date, there appear to be no professional reviews, and the fellow doesn't have any track record as an author, so verifiability is a bit of a problem. The article even describes the plot as rather fluid. --Tony Sidaway 10:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable campus university group. Not quite spam, not quite violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE, but still fails WP:N. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 09:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki 12:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No Google hits, seems to be non-notable band, only active from March 07 to June 07, I think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thoughts? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual, also a conflict of interests as created by the subject. Nate1481( t/c) 09:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is presently a disambiguation page, but no links on the page link to appropriately ambiguous titles. Moreover, it is a common word and these myriad definitions should be moved to the Dictionary. ALTON .ıl 09:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to Westcombe, where the information already resides. ELIMINATORJR 15:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment, so I'm bringing it here. Description of a house in the UK that does not assert notability. Unreferenced. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 09:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that probably this party never existed. The mention in the reference to TASS seems, in accordance with the article on Babu to be a missprint from ZNP, and the 1965 article probably intends to name the Umma Party (see [39] Soman 09:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki 16:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comic book character. Redlinked author and comic book company, plus lack of google hits lead to me suspect WP:HOAX (at best, fails WP:N per lack of references.) Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 09:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep as per guidelines. Capitalistroadster 02:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the team plays only in 21st division Doc Hannibal 08:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable Kl4m 08:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Comment There is a mention on the page Stratford-upon-Avon.
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable music. -- RHaworth 08:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Per WP:SNOW, as non-controversial non-admin closure. Notability of subject has been clearly established, possible copyvio issues seem to be resolved. Thewinchester (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable person, Does not pass WP:BIO Also possible copyvio of [40] ExtraDry 07:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this page for deletion because I really have no idea what should be done with it. The first three paragraphs are a copyright violation from this page, but the whole article is not (and never was) a copyright violation so it can't be speedy deleted. The article was started by Supernerd2005 (talk · contribs) who has made no contributions outside the Steve Pariso article. Checking special:whatlinkshere/Steve Pariso, I notice that the article is effectively orphaned - the only links in mainspace to it are from place name articles; I only found it while fixing links to a disambiguation page. The name "Steve Pariso" gets only 870 google hits, which is incredibly low for someone who has done work on technology. More importantly, these Google hits don't give me any idea why this person belongs in an encyclopedia - I can't find a special achievement that merits a whole article being created for him. However, I may be wrong - I don't know much about computer marketing. Graham87 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopelessly POV fork of global warming controversy, poorly referenced and relying entirely on "big oil" conspiracy theory Iceage77 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand very well why the skeptical editors don't like this article. It will mention (well sourced) things that cannot be mentioned in great detail on the other pages. But then these things do exist in the real world and are notable, and can therefore be incuded in wikipedia. Questioning the motives of creating this article is not a valid argument for deletion.
Similarly, some of the editors who voted (or will vote) for deletion of this article created the article on the Climate of Fear and The Great Global Warming Swindle documentaries may have had POV motives when they did so. However, no one put those articles on AFD because of those suspicions. Anyone can edit these articles, so the POV problems, if any, can be dealt with by editing these articles. Count Iblis 14:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. CitiCat ♫ 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination, contested prod. This seems to be a non-notable event, lacking in reliable sources. Caknuck 07:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. ELIMINATORJR 16:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local politician from London, no significant press coverage. Fails WP:BIO Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 07:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to skim articles. I read the first paragraph from which I gather that the article is about a person - but nothing else. I look for links which might establish notability - I see none. I note the last sentence: "the masses will know about him soon" which suggests not yet notable. Is he notable at present? -- RHaworth 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 13:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable biography. A messy article, full of nonsense and badly-written. Jmlk17 07:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. —Kurykh 00:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unknown and non-notable general. Perhaps slightly famous in his time, but non-notable now. Jmlk17 07:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable website about an MBA student group. Unreferenced and reads like an ad. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 06:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 12:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an alternative rock band, only links are official site and myspace (Google turned up nada). Fails WP:MUSIC. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 06:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Church Gorkymalorki 06:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. - Philippe | Talk 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable drinking game, no references, no relevent Google hits, seems to have been invented by the page creator Bullzeye (Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts) 05:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is, unfortunately, an assertion of notability, though the chances of this making it through are, i believe, slim. - Philippe | Talk 05:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no delete votes were made and I withdraw as nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mall. Fails WP:RS, Google turns up nothing of use. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 05:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, poorly written article on a non-notable mall in Ohio. No sources found in an online search. Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 03:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme violation of WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated people. Some examples; "Abbott & Costello"; "Bo Bice & Constantine Maroulis, rockers in American Idol"; and "Matt Damon & Ben Affleck (colleagues)". Many of these silly pairs-related lists have previously been deleted, for example; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pairs of colleagues (similar to this one) and the classic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous pairs. Category:Celebrity duos already exists for the genuinely notable pairs. Masaruemoto 03:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 19:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, promotional, linkless article Brianhe 03:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 is almost Singularity 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated subjects. Some actors who happen to have played someone from a particular region at some points on their careers. Most successful actors play dozens of roles in their careers, having a southern accent in one of those roles isn't a defining characteristic of the actors, or their careers (with a couple of obvious exceptions, though not enough to base a list on). At most we could have a category called Fictional characters from the American South for the characters that have articles. Masaruemoto 03:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. the_undertow talk 00:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a POV fork and a content fork (WP:CFORK), created in the wake of the "Revesby Incident". Scientology is notoriously active in most countries of the world, but a separate "Scientology and..." article for every region on Earth is currently not justified. (Incidentally, it was created by a possible single-purpose account that started only a few days ago and created this article just 90 mins later, then proceeded to rapidly start linking it to the "See also" sections of other articles.) wikipediatrix 03:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that her logic is flawed, it is common on wikipedia to make Country specific pages when the main pages on a religion are large (which is certainly the case with Scientology). Take for example Buddhism in Australia, Roman Catholic Church in Australia, Anglican Church of Canada, Islam in Australia, Lutheran Church , Christian Reformed Churches of Australia, Uniting Church in Australia, Presbyterian Church of Australia, Trijah 03:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't agree with the censorship charge, I do think that Trijah has a point that other religion-in-country articles are present and there seems to be enough information for the article's existance to be justified.(RookZERO 03:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Remove the negative aspects about an article and you only have the positive bits left. If you can't do that, remove the whole article Trijah 04:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign your name. It's not a memo, it's part of the article creator's reasoning to explain why a specific article is warranted for Australia. The article's existence is not warranted in my opinion. Why improve it? Deleting it is improving the encyclopedia. --Leocomix 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you can call it a content fork...there isn't even any other article on the "revesby incident". Apart from that, that is only one part of the article, it refers to a range of information about CoS, positive, neutral and negative. For some reason, you seem to continuously want to remove the subheadings that are negative about CoS, and this tactic of deleting the page seems to be some rather illogical way of dealing with it. Trijah 03:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary intersection and therefore WP:NOT#IINFO. We have no article about Disney films set in London either. Why not List of Paramount films set in New York? Or any other random combination of studio/location? Masaruemoto 02:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfied by User:UnclePaco, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prime example of something which belongs on Wikinews, rather than Wikipedia. It's a recent local news event with no particular indication that there will be lasting encyclopedic interest in it. Should we be cataloging every single such occurrence? FCYTravis 02:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ARticle was merged with SIUE and userfied onto my soapbox UnclePaco 05:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated subjects; from Extraterrestrials to Zombies? WP:NOT#IINFO as well. Masaruemoto 02:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by user:FCYTravis. Non-admin close Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No information on this league appears in any reliable source I know of on the history of American soccer. Furthermore, it shows signs of being a fabrication - things like team nicknames, wide geographical dispersement of teams in Western U.S. in early 1900's, and aspects of James Erough's biographical info suggest strongly that this series of articles was fabricated by a 21st-century American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnExpert (talk • contribs)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOR. The creator and primary contributor to this article even admits it is original research on the talk page; "much of this article (such as the examples) comes from actually watching sitcoms." This is like the various lists of cliches in film, television, literature, etc, that were also deleted for being Original Research. Masaruemoto 02:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 02:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a directory of loosely asociated topics. Indiscriminate list of people with a vague connection of being "connected with", whether they were born there or just bought a house there it's all the same on this list. Famous is a subjective inclusion criterion as well. Saikokira 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No independent reliable sources provided to support the article's assertion of notability: an attempt to find such sources via Google failed to find any -- cdbaby does not count since it is a directory listing. Delete unless such evidence of notability via reliable independent sources can be provided, and the WP:MUSIC criteria shown to be met. The Anome 02:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. CitiCat ♫ 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, tagged as unreferenced since June 17, no assertion of notability. The author President2036 (talk · contribs) also created Union of Socialist Iberoamerican Republics which has zero Google hits and has been prod'ed. The party website is apparantly http:// socialistpartyofmexico.freewebspace.com (blacklisted by Wikipedia so I inserted a space) which makes me wonder how serious the party is. I'm not Mexican and don't know Spanish so I could miss something. There may be an old (closed?) party of the same name, and 2 or 3 parties called United/Unified/Popular Socialist Party of Mexico, so searching info is hard for me. PrimeHunter 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains only original synthesis: a collection of weakly related events woven into an arbitrary, original pattern to serve a personal POV. Furthermore, no improvement has occurred since the last AFD, leading to the conclusion that the article can not be improved. Accordingly, this article and the accompanying category Category:Allied occupation of Europe should be deleted according to the Wikipedia policy of WP:NOR. Digwuren 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. JdeJ 10:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick mallory Erik Jesse 12:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because the allies did not "occupy" Europe. Kyriakos 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted for this non-notable club/group that would probably qualify as a speedy under db-group. Gets 266 unique G-hits, mostly mirror sites and personal pages. Those 266 hits are not even all about the same group - there are apparently multiple tiny groups using this same name. If starting one's own "splinter study group" to study Scientology away from the Church of Scientology makes one notable, we could all start our own tomorrow. wikipediatrix 01:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. A combination of people who were notable in gliding, and others who just happened to pilot a glider sometimes as a hobby. Like listing John McEnroe and Tom Cruise on a list of tennis players. I can't take any list seriously that groups Barbara Cartland, John Denver, and the Wright Brothers together. Category:Glider pilots was previously deleted for the same reason. Saikokira 01:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But John Denver didn't achieve fame in gliding—he was simply a famous singer who also flew gliders. The same, I suspect, applies to several of the other people. The second part of the list is at risk of degenerating into a Trivia section IMO. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 12:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily kept per nomination withdrawn. Non-admin close. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#DICT. This term is fairly well-known to Mormons, but it has no fixed definition, as the talk page proves. Also, it's seldom used outside the faith, as its 665 google hits prove. This article attempts to document usage of the word, as preserved on the internet, but also includes sizable helpings of WP:OR. This is not an encyclopedia entry, and it should be deleted, or possibly transwikified to wikitionary where "Molly Mormon" is sadly still a red link. Cool Hand Luke 00:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Recommend close as keep per article improvement and WP:SNOW. Cool Hand Luke 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus.. CitiCat ♫ 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article simply lists 3 ways to weld metal, and how to do it. It appears to be some sort of instruction manual, something Wikipedia is not. Kylohk 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article begins, ""Girl Gone Wild" is the rumored and much hyped second single off of Tiffany Evans's debut album" — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The only source in the article verifies the existence of the song, but not that it is to be released as a single, or even that it will be released in any form. Article created (and de-prodded) by a user with a history of adding inaccurate information and unsourced/unverifiable speculation to Wikipedia. Also nominating (for the same reasons, except this one is completely unsourced):
Extraordinary Machine 00:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, prod me if you want any of the deleted content to merge anywhere. Moreschi Talk 17:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to the title, this is only about one alternative arrangement, Spike Jones's version (with a link to Mike Oldfield's version). Until a few days ago this was called William Tell Overture in popular culture and contained a lot of trivia. The trivia was removed and the article renamed, but now the article has no reason to exist. If Spike Jones's version is notable enough it should have its own article, or be detailed in the William Tell Overture article. Saikokira 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An address list of embassies in Hanoi going against WP:NOT#DIR. Russavia 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. If concerns that this article is solely POV are not met, the issue should be revisited. CitiCat ♫ 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original essay. A regular, nonspecific phrase the author wants to assign some special meaning. `'Míkka 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Renaming, as suggested, seems appropriate as well.--Fuhghettaboutit 14:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list article in breach of WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO. It should be noted that Foreign relations of Argentina makes not a single mention of the number of countries with which Argentina holds diplomatic relations, nor mentions anything about the number of overseas missions the country has, so can't understand the reasoning for this list Russavia 00:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 07:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. Lots of download sites but no reputable 3rd party sources or reviews to establish notability. --Hdt83 Chat 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Cool Hand Luke 04:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another list article in breach of WP:NOT#DIR and/or WP:NOT#INFO Russavia 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is specific in what its purpose is. It stats which countries have consular offices in Anchorage and the ranking of each. The list also represents the ties to which countries the city citizens/business ties with. Daltnpapi4u 00:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure whether this should be deleted or not, but if it is, then all the other articles listed here here, and the articles List of Consulates General in Ho Chi Minh City and List of Embassies in Hanoi should be deleted, too. Argyriou (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Atari. —Kurykh 00:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written, completely pointless article. Information could easily be kept in Atari. Giggy UCP 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. It seems any work will have to go to the main article. My main motivation for splitting it up was to keep it grouped with all the other demoscene articles, c.f. Commodore 64 Demos, ZX Spectrum Demos and of course the contemporary Amiga Demos Alex (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as unsourced, unverified original research. As it is original research here and would likely remain that way if split into the many different individual novel articles, there's no reason to keep it since it would continue to violate some of the most basic policies and guidelines here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried and failed to get this article up to Wikipedia standards. "Citation needed" tags have been on almost half of this article for many months with no real enhancement. It is, by its very nature original research since the topic seems too unimportant for reputable websites (almost all of the citations that have been made are to anonymously authored fan F.A.Q.'s or blogs) to discuss and as yet no one has provided proper citation for the information contained within. I have been trying for over a year to get this article to work, but have ultimately accepted that it is impossible. The information is unverifiable, original research and uncited. Konman72 01:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --ST47Talk·Desk 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely unbalanced (though professionally polished and adorned with uploaded images) article written by the organization's webmaster and marketing advisor Benderson2 (talk • contribs). See also *Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Benderson2 and TREC. — Athaenara ✉ 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Online Google searches for "Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation"
Searches for the same phrase WITHOUT the words "wikipedia" and "TREC"
I've no doubt the projects in which the organization purports to involve itself are good. The question here is whether the article's content is verified with citations of sources unaffiliated with the organization itself. It isn't. The professional marketing job and the splendid photographs and diagrams make it look terrific, but it's not a good encyclopedia article, and an encyclopedia is what Wikipedia actually is.
Weeding out mirrors and blogs is tedious. Extensive copyediting of a lengthy and blatant public relations piece to extract the neutral encyclopedic content is tedious. But remember what Wikipedia is not?
It's not news that organizations try to use Wikipedia to make themselves seem more significant than they are. As User:BradPatrick said in his Corporate vanity policy enforcement post last September, the issue here is whether we are "losing the battle for encyclopedic content [to] people intent on hijacking Wikipedia for their own memes"—or not losing it. — Athaenara ✉ 12:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.
Most of the statements refer to the studies MED-CSP and TRANS-CSP wich are verifiable sources. If you want to read NPOV press articles (not press releases!) about TREC to compare the statements of the wikipedia article with, please have a look at The Guardian (also as pdf with pictures), the Solarserver and Der Stern.
There is no doupt that TREC exists and appears in the media, so deleting the article is not the correct way to fix problems with supposed POV. TREC is not a company, it is "an initiative ... in the field of renewable forms of energy" (first sentence in the arcticle), so it is a fault to include it in the list of Business-related deletions.
About the POV:
"To boost the construction of solar thermal power plants and wind turbines in MENA, the EU should support (emphasis added to show WP:SOAP example) a campaign to inform MENA governments that, over the lifetime of those plants, they would be a cheaper source of power than electricity generated from oil or natural gas. This would reduce the domestic use of fossil fuels (which are continuing to increase in price) and, at the same time, it would enable the sun-belt countries to produce clean power from their own deserts for local use and for export."
The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 06:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia and fancruft. Metrackle 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia and fancruft. Metrackle 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia and fancruft. Metrackle 07:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defense of the Ancients (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Continued ask for proof of notability and while there are claims, they're not backed up by actual links. The sole claim to notability is that its in the title of a song that was (might still be) popular in finland. This hardly establishes any kind of world-wide notability, and is an unusual in itself. Even accepted as a source of notability, its a single source. Notability requires multiple instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Previous AfDs consisted purely of WP:ILIKEIT statements, but this is a discussion not a vote, and the usefulness, age, number of google hits, etc is not being questioned. This is an AfD based on the notability and someone needs to be able to demonstrate the notability of this subject within the guidelines.--Crossmr 13:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It's marketing for a film at best, there's really no need for this to have an article. If someone wants to badly merge any salvageable info let me know, I'll give you the deleted material.Wizardman 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HSMcruft Will (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Keep: It's a notable mini-series that just needs expansion. I see no reason for deletion. Sidatio 16:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:NOT#DICT. — TKD::Talk 20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research dicdef with 247 Ghits. Seems entirely appropriate for Urban Dictionary, but I don't think we've got resources from which to write a Wikipedia article on this neologistic onomatopoeia. GTBacchus(talk) 22:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]