The result was Delete. Peacent 01:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been deleted many times, but the AfDs were so long ago that I believe a 2nd one is in order. Anyway, here's my rationale: The article is non-notable, and I'm guessing it hasn't been improved much since its past deletions. Thanks, > Animum < 23:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. This is not an uncontroversial decision, so I'll give a lot of reasoning for it; consensus in this case is based on examining arguments for their validity and considering the remaining valid arguments. Arguments for deletion below revolve around a) low interest among general public, b) the list being indiscriminate, c) the list not being encyclopedic and d) the list being undeveloped. A) The manga might be of low interest in the United States (and perhaps the West), but Wikipedia is a global resource and the works are of sufficient interest in certain parts of the world to refute the 'lack of interest' argument. B) The list has a defined scope and specific inclusion criteria; therefore, it is not indiscriminate. C) The main article exists and references this list; inclusion of the list in the main article would make it's length unwieldy ... therefore, style guidelines support the creation of a standalone article containing the list. D) The template Expand list should be added as a hatnote. One repeated 'keep' related argument in particular is not valid: The article is young => An article can be deleted 1 minute after creation if deletion if consistent with standing policy. In addition, any argument based on 'other Manga have them, therefore this one should' is on the face invalid in relation to 'wp:otherstuffexists'. Finally, if the focus of the article should be volumes rather than chapters, that is a content issue that has no bearing on whether or not the article should be deleted. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopedia article. I'm not really sure what it is, other than listcruft. Corvus cornix 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was structural failure. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was proposed for deletion recently by someone who described it as "a made-up article with no references." The tag has been removed but the article remains an unsourced neologism. Perhaps we could find some reliable sources for this, and perhaps if not we should delete. --Tony Sidaway 23:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently invented "movement" with no sources. —Celithemis 22:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep, withdrawn by the nominator. Ichibani 17:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate listing seeking to capture any time a big-headed statue or someting that looks like a big-headed statue appears in any medium ever, completely lacking in sourcing or any notion of the mention's significance in a real-world context. It does not benefit Wikipedia to compile a list of such "I-spotted-a-big-headed-statue" trivial references as In the Nintendo GameCube game, Animal Crossing, one of the home decorative pieces is a Moai statue or the OR/POV assertion In the very first appearance of Marvel Comic's Thor the hero battled aliens called "The Stone Men from Saturn" that resemble Moai. Strongly oppose in advance any suggestion to merge any of this content into any other article about the statues. It's trivial cruft in a standalone article and it would be every bit as trivial and crufty stuck in somewhere else. Otto4711 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable middle school. Astrovega 22:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and redirect to GCPS - there is some encyclopaedic material to merge. TerriersFan 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
*Keep and expand with the material turned up by Noroton, below, that shows the school meets WP:N. TerriersFan 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<copied text removed, please do not pasted it into the article for copyright reasons>
Non-notable indeed. Um, shouldn't editors who nominate for deletion on grounds of notability start doing a Google News and Google Archives search first, and save the rest of us the trouble?? Noroton 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 01:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate listing seeking to capture every appearance of methamphetimine as a plot point no matter its importance or triviality. See the related Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amphetamine_in_popular_culture for three substantively similar articles which were all deleted. This article is no better and serves no better purpose. Otto4711 21:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Peacent 01:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline speedy candidate for failing WP:CSD#A1, but regardless, almost certainly fails WP:CRYSTAL #2. I have no doubt that this article is going to be released but the fact the only detail that has been released about it is the fact that recording has started - this is generic information, and a limit amount at that. Proposing delete. AllynJ 21:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge→Elvis Presley. Considering the structure of the target article, the merge would lead to dispersal of the content rather than creation of a new section. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Notability isn't inherited. Her son may be the King, but she's not the Queen Mother. Clarityfiend 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the King's article, this can easily be integrated with.--JForget 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no real facts about cuteness, and there are many things in the article that are POV. ANNAfoxlover 20:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One editor who supported the removal of the images is the very editor who has just nominated this entire article for deletion. I note that xe supported the removal of images after xe could not get xyr own "Dogs are cute; cats are not." bias (evident from xyr edits and xyr talk page contributions) to stick in the article, leading me to believe that this nomination is what we've seen many times before at AFD: An editor cannot get their bias on one particular point to stick, so they nominate the entire article for deletion. Uncle G 13:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 01:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant person. The only thing notable about her is her birthday. Hence, she is listed at List of living supercentenarians. A list of the oldest people in the world and related statistics is important; however, that doesn't mean they all need an article. --- RockMFR 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for different reasons. I believe that being 9th-oldest in the world SHOULD be notable in and of itself. However, the practical reality is that we currently are limited by strict Japanese confidentiality laws and a lack of Japanese interest in super-c's (except for first place). Therefore, we are constrained by the situation...there is little information available on this case and placement in the list should be sufficient.
Note this differs from a case in the USA or even Europe, where interest leads to local news coverage and enough extraneous information to warrant an article.
The bottom line: this article should be deleted be it provides no new information.Ryoung122 23:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information that isn't included in the oldest people list. --RandomOrca2 17:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Waltontalk 17:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a forum WP:FORUM or tribute site. Virtually all unsourced, fancruft copy violations. Needs one or two comments from key people sourced into the main article. All this really belongs on some fanboy site. Lugnuts 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. The Korean version of the article is in worse shape, and the present English version bears striking similarity to the Japanese version, suggesting a parent-sibling relationship. Perhaps if one of these other-language versions matures, a better English version will re-emerge. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Linux distribution. Possibly dead or merged with Asianux. Chealer 02:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted in hopes of broader participation and clearer consensus. DES (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 20:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Chealer, but also because this is spam created to link to vendor's website. --Gavin Collins 18:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. NawlinWiki 20:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; template was removed by anon and reverted, which is against policy. Original prod reason was "Totally pointless rehash of the main article on the film." Procedural nom; no opinion. Chick Bowen 19:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 19:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web); votes for 'merge' not accompanied by supporting arguments. External links do not contain mentions of the topic and therefore can't be drawn upon as supporting references. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not try to establish notability and fails notability guidelines quite badly, page created by someone with a major conflict of interest/just shy of outright spam DreamGuy 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Starcraft_II_Confirmed_Units_and_Structures. Neil ╦ 19:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fork of StarCraft II due to an editing dispute. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and a list of units is not encyclopedic. No reliable sources cited, nor do any exist. Original author is claiming gameplay videos released by Blizzard of a pre-beta game constitute reliable sources for creating a list of units in the upcoming game. Unit lists are recognized as unencyclopedic and do not exist in other game articles, including StarCraft. Kesh 18:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, with no prejudice toward recreation if sources can be found (albeit unlikely). Sr13 03:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will link the images and content to the seed entertainment website shortly, which is not a company, but more of a small business. I will notify you all when i have finished. thanks in advance.
Ok, i have made a link to the seed entertainment business website. Please verify. http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)
If i am the author of the text and a representer of seed entertainment, is it still against copyright? I can't copy my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCanuck42 (talk • contribs)
The verified author of the work has to explicitly release that under the GFDL, and that may not be enough. Evn so, the text was promotional ranther than descriptive in nature. -- ArglebargleIV 22:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please go to http://trent.seedentertainment.googlepages.com. The copyright has been updated to allow reposting as long as accreditation is given to seed entertainment.
This article should not be deleted. Even though it was posted by the business who's product it is, are the others any better. Even though other people posted reviews about other future games, are they not promoting or executing vanispamcruftisement for the company who created the game? It is not like this is a false article with stolen information. I do not have large texts saying "buy this!" or "visit seed entertainment". I simply posted the facts and details about the product. If people are interested, then great. When i read other future game articles, i sometimes too become interested in that game. Please do not delete it from all of the reasons just mentioned.
The result was delete. While there seemed to be a bit of interest in merging, the merge opinions don't really seem to indicate where it would logically go, and no one's prevented from adding sourced material about it to any other article in any case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted in hope of a broader consensus. DES (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was spayed and neutered. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 02:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Trivia is not encyclopedic. --Charlene 04:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC) Didn't mean to do that. Sorry. --Charlene 08:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This pantomime has no sources provided and there are no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia. The article claims that the show was performed on a VHS release titled Steve Oliver: The CV, which itself garners no relevant Google hits and is not listed on the Internet Movie Database. The Steve Oliver who created this pantomime does not appear to be the same Steve Oliver who has a Wikipedia article already. I submitted this article for proposed deletion, but the ((prod)) tag was removed; then another person submitted the article for proposed deletion, but I removed the ((prod)) tag because an article can't go through WP:PROD twice. Anyway, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 18:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). There is nothing really to merge; there is a mention in two of the three artists' articles already, one of which is supported by reference to an interview. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non noteable. Fails WP:MUSIC. Should be merged with Daniel Bedingfield, Nikola Rachelle and Natasha Bedingfield Dalejenkins 17:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed deletion but it was technically objected by an anonymous editor saying keep. So I'm bringing it here. As you can see, this has gone through 2 AfDs before, both reaching a consensus to delete. That might make it speediable as a repost, but this might technically be a new article as it was created a few months after the other was deleted. Anyway, the content of the list goes into far too much detail on each battle, copying the exact text from those articles and moving them to the article. Of the four red links or non-links, they are just not linked correctly to the article (except for one which was deleted). This is what categories are for and there is already a category for the battles. This page should just be deleted. Phydend 17:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This poorly referenced article is about klibc. The article claims this is a libc implementation, which would mean it is a library. But the article describes it as a suite of commands and utilities. Either way, the subject doesn't appear to make any claim of notability. Mikeblas 19:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. — Caknuck 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable jewish scholar.--Edtropolis 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was
keep rewritten encyclopaedic article. Thanks/wangi 16:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Scottish slang variation of "piss". Violates WP:NOT#DICT, and is a disambiguation page with 2 suggested meanings, the former of which is probably not verifiable (I am Scottish and have never heard it refer to a bird call), and the other is a dicdef. Already exists in Wiktionary. Unreferenced. Delete.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, terms like "it has mushroomed into a premier provider of" and "Software solution for Process manufacturers" confirm this to be a spam article. Resurgent insurgent 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This spammy article promotes a non-notable company by listing all its products. The references link to advertorials about the company or their clients. --Gavin Collins 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would appear to fail WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. A technician for a band who's currently filling in for another member who is "on leave". While there are two references neither talk about the subject at all - first is a non-RS cartoon strip referring to the original band member; and the second refers to the original band member by the way of their brother and doesn't mention the subject at all. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 18:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted in hopes of clearer consensus. DES (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
to add mobilepro to the supported list. Its very notable in Linux world. --217.208.148.126 21:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - WP:CSD#A7. Thanks/wangi 16:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notenglish! notability? some idiot removed speedy tag Tdxz 14:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While initially the outcome was clearly to delete, the article has since been expanded to assert notability via the site's content being distributed by a notable independent party. Delete comments say this is advertising, but do not elaborate on their rationales. Once this web site is shown to meet WP:WEB, any advertorial tone in the text can be edited away; "redoing" the article does not require deletion. Resurgent insurgent 15:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable site, fails WP:WEB. Listed for AFD after User:Cappy411 removed the speedy tag. Oscarthecat 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.57.151.96 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article makes it obvious what the subject matter is. The article was recently created by a new user with 3 contributions. It was unreferenced original research until I added some references. I could probably add more references but I'm just not sure that this is a valid encyclopedia topic. The content could be merged. I just don't know, so I'm asking for consensus here. Oh yeah and nothing links to it.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. — Caknuck 15:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial, yes. Semi-famous, yes. Encyclopedic, no. Notable? No. Biography guidelines compliant? Borderline. -N 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 non-wiki ghits. It may exist, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Contested prod Kathy A. 13:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bucketsofg 20:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A school in India that fails WP:ORG. PROD in October 06 was contested with comment: "Google shows it exists". That is undoubted. However, the article contains no hint why the school should be notable. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 12:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comment Google shows I exist, but it doesn't mean I get an article. Nothing to suggest notability here. The school website, "under construction", is a deadlink.--Ispy1981 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Waltontalk 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The last half of the article is just advertising, but is this a notable enough event for Wikipedia? Has it "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" per WP:N? 650l2520 10:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedied. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Describes historically nonexistent highway, word for word copy of U.S. Route 55 DandyDan2007 10:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains no hint why the topic should be notable. Was a contested PROD in July 06; but concerns have not been addressed since then. Also entirely unverifiable, not even by a Google search - it seems that quite a number of yachts are called "Sundancer". -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 08:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Waltontalk 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by Kris Classic with the comment ”his time in ROH and other notable indy promotions should make him notable enough. Lack of info isn't a cause for delete”. Was prodded for being a non-notable wrestler. A few low card apperances for RoH isn’t enough to warrant notability, working for Border City Wrestling isn’t automatic cause for inclusion since the promotion itself is barely notable, no sources, fails WP:N and WP:V MPJ-DK 08:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The prod placed on this article was removed after it expired with a comment that it should be AFD'ed. Article is about a small time local indie wrestling company that fails WP:N as well as WP:V and should be deleted MPJ-DK 08:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 01:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability Guroadrunner 07:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 01:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Podcast that adopted its current name in April '07. I initially speedy-deleted this, but after inquiry from the author, I think it at least asserts notability (being on the front page of Stickam and being highly ranked by a podcast rating service). That said, I don't think those sources are sufficient to show general notability per WP:WEB. NawlinWiki 22:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Resurgent insurgent 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One-off article for an album done by an artist not on Wikipedia. WP:Music Guroadrunner 06:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Non-notable artist, non-notable album.--Ispy1981 15:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 17:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable meme. No references. I put a speedy tag on it, but it was removed. Corvus cornix 05:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem to pass WP:WEB. There is only 1 assertion of notability, that the comic strip is "widely popular", yet there are no references given to support this. Article seems designed to promote the comic.Delete TheRingess (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable president of non-notable organization. Corvus cornix 05:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable WordPress theme, we don'thave articles on any other WP themes. I don't see anything that makes this theme specially notable. —Crazytales (talk) (alt) 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect→Lost Lake (a disambiguation page). During the course of the discussion Lost Lake (Canada) was moved to Lost Lake (Abbotsford). The original concern was around the title being misleading, giving inappropriate emphasis to a single Canadian lake. There appears to be little concern expressed below about the content of Lost Lake (Abbotsford). If there is a desire to delete Lost Lake (Canada) after its target is changed, please list at WP:RFD; if there is a desire to delete Lost Lake (Abbotsford), please renominate via WP:AFD (I'm closing this due to the discussion not focusing on the article content). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason the page should be deleted Sp4rk3d 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page should be deleted because the information is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp4rk3d (talk • contribs) 23:03 (UTC) 15 June 2007
Note AfD was malformed; cleaned up. LaughingVulcan 05:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Mallanox. Resurgent insurgent 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is a blatant advertisement for PCDJ and Digital 1 Media. Viper2k6 04:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (default to Keep). Waltontalk 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate list and directory of loosely-associated topics. Seeks to capture any reference to Holmes or any character from Holmes whether Holmes appears or not or anything that has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase. Otto4711 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I have checked the edit histories of contributors and notice there are a fair number of new editors, with minimal edits, to this debate. If this occurs in future please indicate them with ((spa)). User:Edtropolis is now indefinitely blocked. However, this is not a vote, and it is the weight of argument that must be considered. Although this seems a commendable subject, it is not, according to wikipedia's particular requirements, a notable commendable subject that can be shown as such with convincing verifiable sources. Although Bdushaw has put a coherent case, FrozenPurpleCube and B. Wolterding have pointed to considerations that outweigh it. There is no objection to valid information from this article being included in any other relevant articles. Tyrenius 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 04:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Victor
I note that Chealer has recently gone through most of the distribution articles at Comparison_of_Linux_distributions with various fixes. Most of those articles are completely unsourced stubs, hence would qualify as non-notable. So why does OpenPsion get the special treatment? Given the plethora of linux distributions (and articles about them), OpenPsion is at least uniquely identified with Psion devices. As I say, there is a larger issue here; Wikipedia does not seem likely to tolerate the deletion of 90% of the articles on linux distributions... But P.S. I see that many of these articles are indeed up for deletion. Bdushaw 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me again... I've just been going over the Wikipedia policies for deletion and notability. I would first like to point out that when this article was first nominated for deletion, that it would have been helpful to state more clearly the reasons why. About half of this discussion above could have been avoided if we had had a more specific starting point; not all of us are versed in what "notable" means to Wikipedians (we should be, true, but you know...). I also point out that there was been no attempt to fix or correct the article before nominating for deletion, per policy. Before deleting, a preferred option is to merge, and indeed a consensus above seems to be to merge - where I don't know yet, but we would have been better off having a merge discussion prior to the delete discussion. Nor was there a warning about notability posted ahead of time. The process in nominating this article for deletion has been flawed, alas. I think I will post a message to Chealer asking him to include a better description of his reasons for nominating articles for deletion; a simple cut and paste blurb would suffice. Lastly, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, I noted "Programming languages are notable if somewhat widely used; Google is a reasonable test", and in other places where the number of google hits was accepted as a reason to justify notability. Openpsion gets 992 google hits; Psilinux 502 hits - does that then make it notable? Let's keep the article for now and work to merge it to an as-yet-undetermined more appropriate place. Bdushaw 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 02:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, in its various forms, has never been coherent and encyclopedic. Its content, for some months, has just been a spurious metric (some dudes, using their own arbitrary taxonomy which isn't even sketched in the article, gave 557 points to XP and 586 points to OS X 10.4). The article survived previous nominations on the theory that someone might make something worthwhile of the article, but no one has, even after goalposts were put on the discussion page. If some party ever does create a decent article, they can do it out of mainspace, then show it to an admin before relaunch. In the meantime, it's time to save the users. —TheGhostOfAdrianMineha 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Closed as Keep, Bad faith nomination, nominator as been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user JB196 (with no prejudice to re-nomination) SirFozzie 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references that appear in third party publications which are independent of the subject. Importance as a company questioned. Do not think it passes guidelines of WP:CORP. ----La Parka Your Car 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Roderick Brookes nor Pro Wrestling Warriors are notable. Very very very few Google hits that are not from Wikipedia, wikia, or web forums. [28] - Pro Wrestling Warriors appears to be some sort of fantasy wrestling site. [29] - fiction.Corvus cornix 03:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Waltontalk 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this club meets WP:ORG. No significant third-party coverage that I could find. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, speedy closed because of previous delete discussion (CSD G4) and delete consensus. Nihiltres(t.c.s) 13:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable under Wikipedia:Notability (people) TheDavesr 00:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP merged within G-Shock - Nabla 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable product. ~ Wikihermit 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Peacent 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No third-party, non-trivial sources to establish the notability of this website (per WP:N and WP:WEB). hbdragon88 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion. --Ed (Edgar181) 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable online grouping. Astrovega 00:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of living person, including controversial subject matter, with no reliable sources. Claim of notability is in vague terms with no specifics. Zero g-hit in support of this biography. Evb-wiki 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article shouldn't be deleted. The only grounds for which are: The lack of sources, and the relevance of the individual. Both are on debate because of the individuals lack of media attention. However. All of the subject matter covered is notable, and important to the individual. None of the content listed is degrading, or controversial to the individual either.
Notibility is an issue due to the lack of sources; due to the sheer fact that there aren't many convering the individual. Yet. This doesn't constitute for the article's deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheActivist (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was redirect. Sr13 02:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORKy article of Kurdistan Workers Party. Organization changed its name twice and later a third time in returning back to its original name. At the very least us treasury considers them all to be the same organisation. -- Cat chi? 12:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an article, but the text of a license that I'm not sure anyone has ever used. It certainly isn't notable and there doesn't even appear to be any sources for this, much less reliable ones. It is also probably a copyright violation as the text of the GPL itself is copyrighted with distribution restricted to exact copies and this text is mostly a bad find/replace job. Kotepho 23:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Waltontalk 18:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of links to 4 articles, 2 of which never existed, one of which was recently deleted (see AfD), and the last of which I've proposed for deletion. The article survived a previous AfD in 2005, but I think consensus regarding inclusion standards has changed in the past 2 years. A similar list article was deleted in another recent AfD. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 00:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]