The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
The page Japanese_values has no quotations and isn't backed up in any way with evidence. It's entirely subjective and basically doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The article is unencyclopedic and notably has no translation into Japanese. It is also worth noting that most other cultures/countries lack a 'values' page... Why Japan? This is basically an excercise in Nihonjinron and in my opinion has no place on Wikipedia.
urusainaa
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is extremely non-notable. There is no evidence that the player has ever made a senior appearance for any notable clubs and the article is also very poorly written, having had a total of three editors in its entire history. PeeJay 00:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this artical should not be deleted because Mark Redshaw played for Manchester United it states this in Phil Bardsley's wikipedia page and also in the Manchester United Offical year books. He also played for Radcliffe Borough and Caernarfon Town on loan from Manchester City where he was also a professional player. He also played for US Triestina a number of times in the first team in Italy. It also states in Billy Mcnicols book about Mark Redshaw signing for LA Galaxy,(saying how skilful he was) and he was assitant manager of LA Galaxy at the time but I dont no how long he was there of if he played any games. It also said on chelsea's website that Mark Redshaw was having a trial with the club but I dont no how long he was there for. He was also on a professional contract at Wrexham, I can see he played in the FA Youth cup and also the Welsh cup. Soccerbase is also always wrong about players so u carnt depend on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 June 2007
Delete Notability has not been asserted despite all the efforts of the users above. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Is the Italian league not a professional league then, Redshaw played over 20 league games for US Triestina of the seria B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 June 2007
Reply Hard evidence where is your evidence peejay who are you anyway? He has played in Italy the proof is in the games, he played in over 20 matches, I dont no how many games at LA Galaxy he played in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 24 June 2007
Reply what have you looked through on LA Galaxy and Triestina? If you want the artical deleted so badly then just keep being busy because you are one busy person. bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.126.95 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 June 2007
Reply sorry peejay didnt mean to be nasty, peace out,'emma, 007 G agent'
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not provide any significant sources or assert notability. Also suspected WP:COI, as the only other articles edited by the creator were references to this theory and the username is the same (Sergey). The addition to Personality psychology was deleted very quickly, the other was in a Further reading section, so it may have escaped notice. The talk page contains another editor's unfavorable comments as well. Clarityfiend 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete given the broad scope and strong arguments for deletion. --Coredesat 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Famous" is too subjective, and the described scope of this list is too broad.Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent for reasons of sanity)
(2) Trebek's rule: generic titles are meant for game shows, not academia; (3) Famous fried chicken rule: the fewer franchises there are in a chain of chicken restaurants, the more likely that the chain will describe its product as being "famous". Who's famous? Mark Twain's famous, but so are Sue Grafton, Louis Lamour, Nora Roberts, etc. I think that your own defense of your article-- "obviously, I'm in favor" signals that you had your doubts on this one too. Save it on your harddrive, and don't let the experience deter you. First time I had an article deleted, I wasn't happy either, but in retrospect, I can see the other side to this. Mandsford 13:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Anas talk? 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Has only been in operation six months. Doesn't meet WP:CORP. De-proded by author without explanation. eaolson 23:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deserves second consideration after no consensus result last time. Generally trivial list, should probably be merged into any of the popular culture articles on film or books. Bulldog123 22:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 01:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Again, with the many lists of songs about something they're not really about...delete. Bulldog123 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 18:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Small (7 location) local fitness chain with no claim of notability in article. Gsearch does not turn up evidence of notability in first several pages Kathy A. 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, contested prod.--Kathy A. 23:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a presumably very good company and quite non-notable for a encyclopedic article. --Stormbay 02:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Liverpool Institute for Boys. --Coredesat 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Videmus Omnia 22:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 06:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested ((prod)). Despite the fact this article has hundreds of edits (among them speedy deletions of images, etc.), it has never gone anywhere. It blatantly fails to assert notability, it is unsourced, and it reads like a poorly written vanity piece or fancruft. A Google search reveals no reliable sources, mainly Wikimirrors and first-person pages. -- Nonstopdrivel 22:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability established. Unsourced. 0 ghits for "vidic affect". Prod removed by author. OnoremDil 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Anas talk? 20:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopedic topic, and lacks references, it still lacks references since its last AfD. Until(1 == 2) 22:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 19:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this article while deleting images lacking in source information- there was an image originally from this, and I thought it a shame to lose it, and so I tried to find the source online, as it claimed to be from NASA. However, when I started doing a little searching, I could find no reference to this programme online, and so have a horrible feeling that it is a hoax. It has been edited almost exclusively by a single editor, sources are print publications, but I am not certain how genuine they are. I may be completely wrong here- if so, I apologise, I just think it is better to be safe. J Milburn 22:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/merge; further merge discussion can continue at the talk page. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 06:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a good idea to have an article whose sole purpose is to uncritically duplicate a single source? Ethnologue does not necessarily represent the current consensus. Also, the "superfamilies" in the article are not only controversial, they aren't even mentioned in the Ethnologue itself. Ptcamn 22:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“ | The large number of living languages in the initial inventory of ISO 639-3 beyond those already included in ISO 639-2 was derived primarily from Ethnologue (15th edition). Additional extinct, ancient, historic, and constructed languages have been obtained from Linguist List. SIL International has been designated as the ISO 639-3/RA for the purpose of processing requests for alpha-3 language codes comprising the International Standard. | ” |
It would appear that SIL International as an organization is trusted by the International Standards Organization, and Ethnologue (15th ed) is trusted as data. Perhaps this additional information needs to be added to the article. Of course that doesn't preclude addition of criticism of ISO, SIL or Ethnologue, which should be sourced and cited and added to enhance the article. :) Alastair Haines 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is long for new people to read (not a criticism). I'll attempt a summary, tear it apart as biased and that will still help summarise everything. ;) Seems the ideas are:
Does anyone know how to make a Wikitable both sortable and collapsible? Whenever I try, the hide/show goes in the wrong place, or the sort buttons go to the wrong line. Sortability helps this list a lot. Collapsibility would make it less intrusive if moved (now or later). Cheers. Alastair Haines 23:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. Bulldog123 21:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather. To summarize: WP:NOT collection of indiscriminate information. Friendship, love, parental-relationship. It's all very POV in the end. Bulldog123 21:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Universal Studios has nothing about the existence of this film, Stampede Entertainment says it is not going to be made independently, other reference given (geocities) is a fan site. There is no IMDb or AMG listing for this, either. Delete for now until there is some indication that the film is actually going to be made SkierRMH 21:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and this is a plot summary stub with no real-world significance. Otto4711 21:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn and kept. Provided that within an 3 week period that Nonstopdrivel has added sources and this article actually has a paragraph of text to be expanded on. The reasoning behind the time period is because it has already been a blank article for over a year and I know nothing on any subject I edit would normally survive that long without source, references, etc. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's unacceptable in it's current state. Within 3 weeks, I will nominate for deletion again. — Moe ε 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely blank article other than an infobox. No references, sources, external links, etc. — Moe ε 21:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Superman III. Decisions as to what content to merge left to editiorial discretion. WjBscribe 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively an extended plot exposition of Superman III; wholly unreferenced w/o any evidence of exceptional notability. Originally ((prod))ded [13], removed w/o comment [14]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tag for speedy deletion is what to do, not bring it to AFD. — Moe ε 21:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted everything on the page. The club broke up so I don't want to keep up the page. After all, it's my page and I don't care for it anymore. Please delete it. Thanks, Meldshal42 21:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - although arguments to merge are persuasive I consider that this fails WP:RS so any merged information would have verifiability issues. Spartaz Humbug! 23:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable email list. No independent WP:RS for WP:WEB notability inclusion criteria. Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A7, but contested/recreated. Leuko 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, apparently no notability established. Sr13 06:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub describing a niche, alpha-stage operating system. Notability not established, ant not immediately apparent from Google results (90 unique). Possible vanity article (author and primary contributor is user:Bochnig; the article attributes MarTux to Martin Bochnig). lcamtuf 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this has WP:NPOV#Undue weight on a high school that is not nationally known for being controversial. Some of the content seems non-verifiable. In addition, it may be too easy to add weasel words. WhisperToMe 20:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also see [15] for why this is a terrible idea for an article. WhisperToMe 20:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics, with no well-defined criteria for inclusion, per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY --Eyrian 20:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So many reasons. Plot summary of unnamed, unpublished science fiction; article created by the author. Clarityfiend 20:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Anas talk? 20:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded, but there is refs, procedural listing, No opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. After the !votes of IPs and SPAs are discounted, there's a majority to delete. More importantly, the arguments for deletion establish that this is a local news story, not an encyclopedic subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No context given, this appears to be about a local news event. Article doesn't even make it clear they are talking about a neighborhood in NYC. Maybe belongs in wikinews. rogerd 20:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Bob and George. --Coredesat 02:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, per WP:NOT#IINFO. The main article contains an adequate plot summary. Eyrian 20:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 23:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough. Chris 19:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to InuYasha as there is nothing mergeable. --Coredesat 02:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries, per WP:NOT#IINFO. The main article contains an adequate plot summary. --Eyrian 19:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as pure vandalism (given the oh-so-subtle anti-Gypsy content) Pascal.Tesson 21:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. Events described in the article never happened MariusM 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged computing term. Unreferenced neologism. -- RHaworth 19:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited article, does not assert notability to meet WP:WEB BigrTex 18:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted as non-notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Malley). It's now reappeared and makes various dubious claims of notability. Examples:
The only remaining claim to fame is the podcast "Keith and the Girl", and I'm not in a position to judge its notability. Even if it is notable, does that mean that Keith Malley is? —Psychonaut 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable church. No WP:RS to indicate notability. Contested speedy. Leuko 18:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete, db-author, as author has blanked the page. Leuko 18:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any WP:RS to verify the existence of this film, only mentions in Google are WP mirrors. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Leuko 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as copyvio. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable DJ, does not have WP:RS to indicate meeting WP:MUSIC. Leuko 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a murderer who in themselves is not notable, even if the murder itself may be (although I would argue not). More importantly, there are no reliable sources in the article (the two provided seem to be blog-type self-published sources) raising BLP concerns. CIreland 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 05:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and apparently dead software project. Chealer 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 05:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, not mainstream use of term. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] VanTucky 20:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Tango" is not notable enough on his own to warrant his own wikipage. There also is not a single cited source to back up any of the claims stated. Until this person does something more notable than winning a single reality show contest, this article should be deleted. Gamer83 17:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by Anthony.bradbury (NN school). Non-admin closure of orphaned AFD. Serpent's Choice 18:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely a duplication of Golden Hills Elementary School as it was started by the same user (who have been warned for vandalism and speedy deletion notices in the past. The school it self is non-notable as well see other nom. I could have nominated it for speedy deletion as well JForget 17:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteable website. Un-sourced also. Is this advertising? Dalejenkins 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The argument as to whether the page amounts to an advertisement is perhaps best left to those with no personal stakes in the matter. However I would urge the moderators who make the final decision to leave up the results section please.
The British, European and World Championships are recognised by many of the quizzing community (even jw6 has a website that records the results of these events)and it would be a crime if this was deleted simply because of the continuing animosity between jw6 and one of the directors of quizzing. Portlius 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry what was so controversial about a shortish list of winners at UK, European and World Championships? And what is namecrufting? By all means edit the descriptive sections for tone but surely the winners list is objective and worthy of some note? Portlius 14:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed twice. Procedural listing, no assertion of any notability, can't meet WP:MUSIC The Rambling Man 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As with Muhammed Sonny Mercan, this appears to be an example of WP:COI. This person does not appear on Google except on WP and his own site. Possibly a walled garden? Vizjim 17:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Fullerton, California. --Coredesat 02:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not any content rather then the city it is located, but fails to meet WP:SCHOOL. A merger was suggested to the city's school district, but does not appear to have an article either. Delete, mostly per lack of content and per failure to meet WP:SCHOOL or merge to the city's article if the article is deleted--JForget 17:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Akiyama 16:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dicdef already in Wiktionary--Ispy1981 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete nya nya. --Coredesat 02:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, however, unfortunately does not qualify for the narrow definition of A7. Leuko 16:27, 23 June 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)) . |
how much evidence do you need? [32]
i can provide as much info as you like. if you seriously think someone would make something like that up you are very mistaken. the school was grove lea,hemsworth,w.yorks the head master mrs mcnichol and the other producers and workers for the gazzete were kane rush, amber milnes, georgina akyroyd and kim mitchum if you need any more info ask me on my email: (email and phone removed. Posting personal contact info is not a good ideaEdison 19:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)) 18:19, 23 June 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovescene123 (talk • contribs).— Lovescene123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research WP:OR and POV fork of Cherokee Heritage Groups. Spillover of on-going debate on Cherokee. Article contains an ocean of uncited materials which are almost entirely original research. Materials fail WP:V because it is not possible to verify these groups or individuals are Cherokee. Additionally, article violates WP:BLP since it attributes Cherokee tribal membership to various individuals and subjects them to public scrutiny.
The result was delete all. --Coredesat 02:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor state-level beauty-pageant winners. No other accomplishments, only a few local media references or none at all. Four from this group have already been considered by AFD (Holly Shively, Annilie Hastey, Sommer Isdale, and Kari Schull) and their deletions upheld at deletion review. So now it's time for the rest. I'm doing this because I had already added PROD tags to them and which were removed by the article creator (User:PageantUpdater) and User:Jeffpw, so technically I can't re-add the tags. The list includes:
--Calton | Talk 16:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (WP:SNOW). Anas talk? 12:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Medical nonsense. No verifiable sources on scholarly WebMD, PubMed, or Proquest databases. Syndrome appears to be a joke, the name being indication enough, its cause being too much masturbation and its treatment being less masturbation. --David Andreas 16:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Anas talk? 12:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the owner of a non-notable local garbage company. Even if it's an article related to my hometown, it does not meet WP:BIO even he supported current Gatineau mayor Marc Bureau. Also, there are no Google hits related to himself (there are links to other Martin Gregory's from Indiana and the UK )nor his company. So it is probably a hoax. Also it has no sources to support the information. So Delete per WP:V, WP:BIO and possibly WP:OR.--JForget 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No verifiable sources to back up the relatively weak case for note, only source is a blogspot citation, considerable issues with tone MrZaiustalk 15:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Note: Originally flagged for prod by User:The Rambling Man. Moved to AfD when prod removed w/o resolving issues therein.[reply]
Delete Very few reliable sources. In fact, only one and it's borderline--an interview in a Portuguese hip-hop website. Everything else is lyric sheets, which could be uploaded by anyone--Ispy1981 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s borderline, but I think he’s notable. He’s certainly not as famous and notable as Sam the Kid or Boss AC – two hip hop “superstars” – but he seems to have had a significant impact on Portuguese hip hop recently, even with only two albums and two or three videoclips. Someone who knows more than me about Portuguese hip hop should give their opinion on this. Anyway, here are some sources supporting his notability: Acording to this article on a Portuguese music site, his second album “Serviço Público” was considered by the critics as one of the best Portuguese hip hop albums of 2006. On this article on the newspaper Jornal de Notícias, a prominent hip hop critic, Rui Miguel Abreu, calls him the only political rapper in Portugal. Cattus talk 17:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is referenced, and he seems notable.--LindsayLauren 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)— User:LindsayLauren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep His video, Anti-Heroi, is featured on MTV Portugal: [33] . I think this assures his notability. Any musician with a video on MTV is notable. --HipHopLover 15:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) — User:HipHopLover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep He is a famous rapper in portugal and improves the information of portuguese hip hop on wikipedia.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, and salt. Anas talk? 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This activist's name does not appear anywhere on Google except in Wikipedia and similar websites. The article seems to promote his art, so I suspect a WP:COI violation. Vizjim 15:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Deleted twice. Person lacks notability. Salt the page? Corpx 17:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. --Coredesat 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN label. Has released "a couple of mixtapes". And? How is this notable? Lugnuts 15:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game with some hints of WP:NFT (to me at least). Craw-daddy 14:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails all tests of notability. Repost by author who also appears to fail conflict of interest guidelines. NMChico24 14:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --soum talk 13:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All relevant information is located in other articles. Their ECW tenure is covered in Triple Threat, their WCW in Four Horsemen, and their WWF in The Radicalz. Nenog 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Waltontalk 14:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Demo albums from As Cities Burn released before they were signed in 2005 to a label. 650l2520 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made these articles, I agree most of them don't comply, But the 1st and Last release are real and talked about on their official website.
http://www.ascitiesburn.com/main.php
Click the biography tab, it mentions the 2 EP's the only thing we don't know is which of the 2 releases are being talked about out of the 3, the one that isn't being talked is obviously just demos and not officialy self-released. That article should go is the one thats not talked about or mentioned anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.36.81 (talk • contribs)
Yes, Delete those 2 articles 4-Song EP
and Demo 2003 aren't good. Technically, the only official releases they had were the ones in As Cities Burn EP
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research, no references or sources. Should be deleted per the precedent established at this previous "Fictional cliché" list debate. The consensus there was that the article was purely uncited original research, and therefore did not belong in Wikipedia. This article here appears to have exactly the same attributes, and should probably be removed entirely. It's been around for ages with nobody interested in fixing it.--Folantin 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A web site that fails WP:WEB, since no hints to secondary coverage are given. PROD contested in last June, without comment. Notability warning since October 06, no major changes have been made since then. A number of people contributed to the talk page, but no one has bothered to add any independent references. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems not to meet the criteria for a wikipedia article especially due to notability concerns and the fact that Wikipedia isn't just a repository for information. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed by anon without explanation. The weapon does not appear to have any notability as attested to by multiple independent reliable sources. Claims that it is or may be based on real-world weapons are impermissible original research. Otto4711 16:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability through third-party sources. Article had previously been speedily deleted under A7, and has been recreated. Only references provided are the author's own book and the author's own Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncertain notability of software product, appears to fail WP:NOTABLE, already deleted once via prod. Oscarthecat 21:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The project was listed in the [Comparison of open source configuration management software] page, which is why I expanded the external link to a proper page describing the project. I've tried to include a number of relevant external sources so that people can judge if the project is notable or not.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism. How is she notable? There are plenty of children out there who may be just like her but haven't taken an IQ test. If you argue that she's notable for being the youngest member, when the next youngest member joins should this article be deleted? There's also the concern of her being a minor (which she will be for another 14 years). Non-notable imo, but it's probably too controversial to be speedied. Strong delete. – Chacor 12:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 18:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL. Only source is an unreliable webpage with 1 fan-made looking screenshot. Merge any noteable and sourced infomation with Shrek (series) and re-create closer to the time (if this is true). Dalejenkins 11:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, as inferior to the associated category. If anyone wants the article list to perform a completeness check on the category, please ask --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has ~600 entries versus to over 4000 in the category that shares the same name, Category:English footballers (thanks to Daemonic Kangaroo for the entry count). Appears unnecessary as it is just a simple list of articles with no new information compared to the category list. Palffy 11:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merging shall be worked out on the talk pages. -- Y not? 14:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about TV show storylines aren't allowed. Barely any sources and not noteable. Dalejenkins 11:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Nelson Mandela#First marriage. Feel free to merge any content, but its looks like everything is included there already. WjBscribe 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really think this article demonstrates notability.. Nelson Mandela is of course an extremely wellknown figure.. but is his first wife as well? Doesn't meet WP:BIO. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film; no IMDB or AMG listing; no mention of notability in article, no 3rd party coverage. (as per prod) Eliz81 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 10:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event. Jeff Biggs 10:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definite neologism, probable protologism. Jeff Biggs 10:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep interesting to note the nominator wanted to keep. Gnangarra 11:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Team notability per WP:ORG. Oo7565 09:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The artcile contains zero references. As DHowell mentioned, the slogan has some mentions in the press, but most of the results are not freely accessible, and from search results it seems that most mentions are quite trivial, which is not enough to establish notability. MaxSem 17:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patent nonsense. I suggest a redirect to CBS.--Edtropolis 19:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Edtropolis, I would really like to hear your idea of "nonsense"! My artcles are totally based on fact by what is seen in all forms of broadcasting. -numbaonestunna
Support redirect though it doesn't fit the CSD definition of patent nonsense--Ispy1981 21:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-Vox Humana, read my full statement below. It isn't just about the slogan. -numbaonestunna
I've used my spare time to compose these articles about these CBS campaigns, and I for one think it is a total waste of my time for you all to just decide to scrap work that has been seen by other users as totally relevant by both Wikipedia and nostaligic standards. For one thing, you all discuss this matter as if it only applies to mere slogans. You all need to look at these articles more carefully; it is the network campaigns that are covered in these works, not just necessarily the slogan. A slogan is just the tool used as a way for the public to identify a campaign. Besides a slogan, campaigns also feature jingles, a variety of promotional spots in TV, print and radio, and they also closely tie in with the shows on any given network. Many network campaigns run over the years have become quite popular to the point that they seep into the subconscious of the public. With all this figured in, the articles definately should stay, since people do search for this kind of information, especially if they haven't seen material from a certain campaign in many years. -numbaonestunna
The result was Keep — Caknuck 18:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film soundtrack. The film is a fairly ordinary film, and the music does not appear to be particularly notable in the music or film-score world. The article does not make any attempt to explain why the score has a separate article, as opposed to other films which have a "sound" or "music" section. Seems insufficiently notable to have its own article.
AFD proposal - delete and merge with the film article. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (A1). —Xezbeth 13:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like advertising and also makes no claim of notability. (At AfD because a speedy was removed by an anon, and a PROD removed by an account with few edits.) Iknowyourider (t c) 08:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous editor has had a pattern of deleting relevant information from notable porn actors articles and then submitting them for speedy deletion. Although one of them had won an award, and both of them had received quite a bit of media attention, their authors didn't understand the importance of citing sources, and both were summarily deleted. I don't know much about this subject, although as he was a Falcon exclusive in 1995, I am sure he received quite a bit of media in his day (Falcon has been the gay equivalent of Vivid), I don't have immediate access to the sources to support the information on the article, although I assume it does exist. As I'm sure the anonymous editor is going to keep resubmitting this article for speedy deletion, I would much prefer to have an actual discussion than a much more quick and (in my opinion) fallible process. I am of the opinion that this subject is notable under WP:BIO's first criterion, "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I have listed a couple of such sources as part of the references in the article, but it would take much more time for me to dig up the sources from his main heyday than a speedy delete process would allow, not to mention gay pride is this weekend, so I'm probably not going to be on wikipedia much. Todd(Talk-Contribs) 08:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. Anas talk? 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a small time wrestling company that existed from 2001 to 2003 and never did anything to achieve notability. Only aired on local TV never getting any widespread distribution. Fails WP:COMPANY and WP:V
I am also nominating the following related pages because: They are title pages for the shortlived PCW and should be deleted if the main article is deleted
The result was delete. Consensus was that it did not meet WP:WEB. — OcatecirT 05:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website, only two Google hits, and one of them is the site's page itself. I nominated this for speedy deletion, but an anon removed the tag without explanation, so I'm forced to come here. Corvus cornix 07:31, 23 June 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)) . |
I would be that Anon. A player of the game the page is about, and I beg your pardon on missing wikipedia etiquette as this is my first time change/editing/altering anything on here. We're trying to have a base wiki to help inform people about the game, and as a resource for fast information about the game as the need arises. There are five tons of information, technical and fluff about the game, all of that we plan to edit in, as for now, we're just getting the ball rolling.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs).
As I said, the aim is mostly aimed at having a page for quick information, when needed. What would be your thoughts on making less add like?
I created this page as one of the players, not one of the people coding or working on the game. I noticed that there are references to many online battltech games and I decided that this one should be referenced as well. The game is non-profit and therefore the page wouldn't be advertising. The page would simply show what the game is, how it is played, and possibly in the future, history of in game happenings or changes such as war etc. This game allows people to play classic battletech with others in an online environment and the wiki may alert classic battletech fans of a way in which they could play their beloved game. -InvaderC1 00:52, 23 June 2007 (PST)
I agree, this article should not be deleted as there is no profit involved, its just a way for people to know that their favourite hobby has an online counterpart with which they could partake in User WingedPuma 08:58, 23 June 2007 GMT
just becuase its not on google doesnt mean its not relevant to the battletech communit. Is it your rule that only popular information gets on here? Not much of a wiki if that is the case. - jamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
If thats the case then i can suggest about 5 others that would be in the same category. look at the other links where Invasion3042 is listed - would they not be the same? JamesD (as for solicting donations, i wonder hwo amny other wikipedia listings accept donations or talk of a commercial product? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but what about all of the other battletech games with pages. As an example, on the list of battletech games page, there is several online games there as well with wikipedia entries. If we made our page look similar to theirs, could our page stay on wikipedia? This page I use as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplayer_BattleTech_3025 --InvaderC1 08:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so its because they are mega multinationsals is it? didnt they have to start somewhere too? i think this stinks of hypocrasy and an obvious attempt to discourage wiki involvement - JamesD —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
Alright, so that game has major corporations as backing. Are you suggesting that only people with money behind their projects are worthy of a wiki page? This is all centered around giving people information about outlets for the classic battletech game. Our page is not meant as an advertisment and we aren't forcing people to play it. What would you suggest our page needs?--InvaderC1 08:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?
Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so just because EA is big they can have a wiki about their game but because invasion is small they cannot?
Alright, so we just need someone notable to reference the game then or what? The game is also used by US servicemen to relieve stress. It has it's good sides, and of course we can mention other things. --InvaderC1 08:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question, please define "big", how many players would be needed for it to be commonplace? - JamesD—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.137.253 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
Battletech was big and is the basis of the game. Wouldn't the fact that it was a well known board game and is the entire basis of this game be notibility? --InvaderC1 08:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming Magazines don't mention anything thats not major label, or that they're not paid substantially to mention. Also: building and programing a game, and paying for the infrastructure to support it isn't exactly a basement project. - James B—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
But could it be used as a reference to perhaps increase the strength of our weak article? And as for review sites, if we had enough people review us would that help for notibility? --InvaderC1 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have your mind made up that its not going to fit in wikipedia no matter what I say, sorry to waste your time - JamesD
As for notibility, the game is on www.mpogd.com to be voted for as the top online game of the month. There is a website mentioning the game with a neutral point of view about the game.--InvaderC1 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The game will now also have the notibility of having a debate marked on two wikipedia entries.--InvaderC1 08:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To what Invader says, I'd like to add that the website he linked is a community kept reviews and rating site, and for the subject at hand is a reliable and mostly objective source of information regarding this sort of game. -James B
Alright, I need sleep. My closing point is that I simply wanted to add to wikipedia something that I deemed was missing. The message sent to me indicates that we are able to, and will try again at this endeavor. For now, it looks like the game needs to make a name for itself first, or receive endorsement from a credible source.--InvaderC1 08:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To quote notibility and deletion: "Imagine a world in which every person has free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." We are not doing that, indeed we are actively preventing that, if we are deleting articles solely due to their obscurity. "Detailed obscure topics hurt no-one because it's pretty hard to find them by accident, and Wikipedia isn't paper" (from Wikipedia:Importance). Further, currently obscure, or seemingly obscure, subjects may garner more popular interest at a later date. In such a case, deleted articles will constitute a loss of valuable (and perhaps, in the transitory world of the internet, irreproducible) information." James B —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.187.2.188 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
The quote, actually was found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability/Arguments#Notability_and_deletion
And in response to Iknowyourider: The context of that quote is to illustrate that anything, however insignificant or non-notable at one given time may be at a later date, and conversation and old information about a given topic lost due to deletion could later prove to be interesting, notable, and valuable(In a non-monetary sense). If the game, in ten years, has five hundred thousand players, the game mechanics when the game was first introduced would likey vary greatly, and be of much interest to those five hundred thousand. A second key point is that, simply put, no one uninterested in this has to look at it, ever. Unless they're looking through at the classic battle tech wiki, or searching invasion 3042 specifically, they are likely never to see it. Or perhaps if they are looking for new posts. Also, the article is less than twenty four hours old, and is still being announced to the attached community, to be developed into a more mature an informational page. 67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)James B67.187.2.188 09:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So will this article be moved to a private page where all of the users can add onto it while the game gains notibility until we can move it to the mainstream, or will we have to start over anew?--InvaderC1 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on Userifying it. Thanks for clearing this up in a respectful manner. InvaderC1 07:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Jeff Biggs 07:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn) Corpx 20:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has had a number of differing incarnations, but (short of looking through all revisions) I didn't see anything approximating a notability qualifying source. The page suffers from both lack of verifiability, and lack of proof of notability through the provision of multiple, independent reliable sources. Some of the older incarnations were better than the current version, but no real assertion of notability beyond allegedly sparking reports across a whole county. Further, while police reports (present in some versions of the article), are certainly reliable sources for quoting individuals, since anyone who "reports" something like this can end up making one, it's no evidence of notability. Someguy1221 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a quick note to remind people that this entry should be about "the claim of the existence of a creature", not "the actual existence of the creature". Therefore editors should primarily be concerned with the verifiability/notability/accuracy of claims and their contents, rather than the zoological reality of any actual creature.
While this might seem like a rather cryptic point to make it is nevertheless an important one because, as a paranormal entry rather than a scientific one, it means that that the creature can be just as notable as a hoax or a myth as it can an actual physical creature.
perfectblue 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 06:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for plot summaries and this is nothing but a series-long plot summary. See similar deletions for season summary articles Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 1 and 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 3 and 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawson's Creek: seasons 5 and 6. Otto4711 06:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was CSD A7, non-admin closure Rackabello 13:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rap group with no releases as of yet, fails WP:MUSIC Article reeks of WP:CRYSTAL Rackabello 05:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 18:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn school. Article really isn't about the school itself, but is simply a vanity article by its creator, who has made sure his own name is mentioned as often as possible. Prod removed without comment. Resolute 05:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability shown. Co-author of upcoming poker book is the closet thing to being notable. Is a professional poker player, he has not won any major poker tournaments. Is a musician, yet he has not had any recording contracts. Jauerback 05:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, articles on Jeffree Star have been repeatedly deleted and protected. NawlinWiki 11:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. Speedy tag was put up but there is a weak claim of notability. I abstain. Pascal.Tesson 05:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be self-penned vanity article. Originator removed both speedy deletion tag (placed by another user) and proposed deletion tag (placed by me). No sourcing, and Google yields nothing of interest. Does not appear to meet notability. Proofreader J-Man 05:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actor with a total of two (uncredited) roles at imdb, and supposedly a producer too but imdb has nothing. Few google results. He's Iranian--does anyone know his Farsi name so they can see if that pulls up more? He apparently has fans from my searches but I can't find any sources that show anything substantive he's done, or any substantive coverage of him. Note: if this gets deleted, can someone nominate the wikiquote page I made where I moved all the quotes from this page to? Calliopejen1 05:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 11:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherzo (talk • contribs) 04:53, 23 Jun 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vague, unsourced original research. Sent to AfD because a PROD was removed. Iknowyourider (t c) 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web 2.0 keep changing the IT trend from navigating the see of information to navigating the see of knowledge where information becomes knowledge by the human manipulation with a specific target. In the period of Web 1.0, the continuous improving of knowledge was not happened so that to get the proper knowledge, we must manupulate the information founded in the some website at the cost of not so short effort. Hence, if Web 2.0 can be perfectly deployed over the whole internet, it is almost not necessary that we generate from informations to knowledge any more; just search and find well-organized and suitable knowledge (even more well organized than how you can do). One possible drawback in practical web 2.0 systems is the potential to get "bad knowledge" because of poor objectivity or improper clarification between the finder and the generator. Note that the definition of knowledge as used here can be somehow different from the general definition of knowledge.
The result was delete. Sr13 05:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable dancer. Claims of notability, so I didn't list it for speedy deletion. There are lots of Rachel Howes on Google, but this one did not show up on the first two pages of hits. Corvus cornix 04:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for anything, really. It defaults to keep, though you guys can merge it if you want to. Wizardman 19:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"List of Songs in _____" Corpx 04:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable bio. Very small IMDb entry. Article has high vanity/advertising value and low encyclopedic value. Dali-Llama 04:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Anas talk? 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I believe that this article, which states that the movie will open sometime in 2010 (which is 3 years from now), falls under this wikipedia guideline and it should be deleted. dposse 04:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Waltontalk 15:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is notable. The main graphic in that page started showing up on talk pages after the Seigenthaler incident and I suspect this article was created after the fact to legitimize that image being uploaded. The cartoonist is also a member of Wikipedia, but was cautious to not create the page himself. I don't think it's anything sinister, but I doubt this article would exist if the cartoon wasn't posted around Wikipedia several months ago. Philwelch 03:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to List of terms in Charmed. Waltontalk 15:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a fictional super power and has no sources to support real world importance. It is entirely in universe Jay32183 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
poor sourcing, unencyclopedic style, little content Makerowner 03:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, and thus I change my judgement to NEUTRAL. However, if this article survives the AFD process, it will need very extensive work to bring it up to encyclopedic standards. I encourage the article's creators to contact me on my homepage. Rhinoracer 20:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a hoax. I've never heard of "zonka" music (and we certainly don't have an article about it). No references provided. Disputed prod, no reason given. ShadowHalo 03:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet-to-be-released album by a minimally notable musician, no references, only 37 google hits for '"Kutt Calhoun" "feature presentation"'. Corvus cornix 03:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Tyrenius 12:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts that its subject is a newly created peer, but the claim seems confused, and I suspect the title may be... well, unofficial, much like Sir Mix-a-Lot's KBE. Other than that, he's an actor who's had a few minor roles.
Also nominating Lord Castrianni, a cut-and-paste copy. —Celithemis 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki to Wikibooks. There are two issues involved here. One is the issue of whether the page is original research. The article contains nothing but mathematical derivations, which would seem 'obvious' and not in need of sourcing to some mathematicians. The article could do with a description of why the derivations produce the correct answer sourced from an reliable source outside Wikipedia, but this seems reasonable. The description of User:Geometry guy in the discussion as to how this article is in fact itself a source for Poker probability (Omaha), rather than requiring sources itself, is an interesting statement; however, bear in mind that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by the definition, and shouldn't really be used to source itself. However, the issue of whether the content is appropriate for Wikipedia is more important. Giving long derivations isn't really the sort of thing that would be found in an encyclopedia; it's much more the sort of thing that would be found in an appendix of a textbook or other such work, as many of the comments below indicate. This content isn't appropriate for Wikipedia, but there are sister projects where this content is appropriate (and will still serve the same purpose, of backing up the assertions in the 'parent article'). I've asked the Wikibooks administrators to transwiki this article there; this closure is without predjudice against the article also being transwikied to Wikiversity. --ais523 16:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite simply, WP:NOT and indiscriminate collection of information. This article consists solely of original research, with no references cited for any of the claims made, and it is highly unencyclopedic. Previously nominated for deletion in February (discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Omaha)/Derivations for making low hands), the consensus until now has been to keep, although the previous discussion agreed upon the move to its current title. I see absolutely no hope for this to ever become an encyclopedia article, and it is certainly not one now. Helpful information to "Omaha hold'em" players and mathematicians, indeed, but it has no place on Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I normally deal with articles that are too atrocious for Wikipedia - AFD and similar. I wonder if your article on poker probability is too good for Wikipedia. I found it as the second legitimate article on Wikipedia's list of longest pages. On a subject like this, that seems odd. Obviously, I'm not going to nominate the article for deletion or anything similar - and, as an admin, you know the rules at least as well as I do - but I'd like an explanation for why it's so long, and why all the material belongs. YechielMan 07:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Notice also that this is a subpage of the main Poker probability (Omaha) page. In writing this article, rather than simply providing the tables of odds and probability, which you can find many places on the Internet, the intent is to provide the derivations behind the tables. These are obviously too long to include in the main article, so thus the subpages. The subject doesn't really stand on its own as an article, so it's not a "main" article but rather a subpage.
- The reasoning behind providing the derivations, which in some cases are quite expansive, is because this is precisely the type of information that makes the discussion of poker probability encyclopedic, rather than a simple regurgitation of tables. Without the derivations, the numbers in the Poker probability (Omaha) tables have to be taken at face value—there's no way to see where the numbers come from. By providing the derivations, the complete set of formulas necessary to derive the probabilities are available.
- As I started writing the article, it wasn't clear to me that some of the derivation tables were going to get so large. As I've continue with the article, adding sections, some of the derivations, in particular this one, have gotten rather large. A lot of the size is due to the table mark up and math expressions. I've considered whether the final article when done should include the derivation subpages or not, but until the article is finished, I've been adding them under the understanding that Wikipedia is not paper. The final disposition of the derivation tables is still an open issue, but I think they add an encyclopedic value to the article that sets it apart from the many poker probability pages on the Web that are just giving the resulting numbers and not exposing the math behind them. —Doug Bell talk 08:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good answer. I'm impressed. YechielMan 06:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
YechielMan 12:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-- Well, if and when this thing gets deleted, I think it should definitely be preserved somewhere, just because it is perhaps the most indiscriminate article I have ever seen :)--Cronholm144 14:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur actress known for fan projects. No IMDB page. Google search on name with "actress" modifiers returns less than 90 unique entries. Delete as non-notable. MikeWazowski 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an unsourced fictional history of a fictional couple. Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries and this is nothing but a summary of the storyline of the couple. Otto4711 02:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable concert per WP:MUSIC. Videmus Omnia 23:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Sure it needs cleanup, but come on, AfD's not the place for it. Wizardman 02:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article content only displays blatant advertising — N96 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC) 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was take to Redirects for discussion. Resurgent insurgent 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no sense whatsoever. What does "Where is your god now?" have to do with "Burger King Kingdom" Chris9086 01:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and (I hope) cleanup. Non-admin closure. Shalom Hello 14:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant and becoming unwieldy. Category system suffices. Alan Liefting 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand a list sorted by race, gender or religion, but by continental region? What good does this serve us? Who identifies as "South Asian"? This is not a useful list, not only in scope but in content as well. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the professions where it could be considered, useful, interesting or pertinent to have a list of gay professionals, such as politicians, clergy, activists or sportspeople, composers do not come to mind. A list of LGBt composers does not seem particularly striking or helpful. Best leave it to the category and delete this list. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added all the composers who were LGBT to Category:LGBT composers. It would seem many people have been added to the list who are not gay - another reason to delete given who misleading it is. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete without prejudice against a future article on the subject, as long as such an article doesn't violate WP:WAF, WP:FICT and WP:V. --ais523 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I question the need for a separate article on just a continent in a MMORPG universe. The elements of the in-game story concerning the continent are already well covered in the elaborate (almost too elaborate) plot summary in Guild Wars Prophecies. Any further detail is meaningful only to players of the game, who should be looking up information in a Guild Wars-related wiki such as the one officially maintained by the creators of the game (and linked from every Guild Wars article). For completeness in this nomination, this article also violates the following necessary points of policy and guideline:
I recommend deletion with no prejudice against reducing to a redirect to Guild wars or Guild Wars Prophecies and merging any salvageable content (of which I found none). Eric Sandholm 00:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a software guidebook. Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Non-notable author. Only links to this article were from Bridget Jones's Diary and Adrian Mole and Ben Elton, the author of this article having written weasel statements to link the works. User repeatedly removed valid tags from article, and restored the weasel statements to the other articles, suggesting a conflict of interest. Drat (Talk) 00:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as nonnotable neologism. bibliomaniac15 BUY NOW! 21:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus -- Y not? 14:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural relisting from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 17. I abstain at this point. Daniel 07:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete with a deep sigh. Personally, I would prefer that some of this information be merged into the Mandrake Press article, along with information about the modern Mandrake Press. However multiple advocates/opponents of the two publishing houses have been conducting a WikiWar between themselves over the inclusion of the rival articles, and neither has properly established the notability of their favourite. So reluctantly, I say lets keep both Mandrake of Oxford and Mandrake Press off the Wiki (until either becomes notable), and retain only the article about the original Mandrake Press. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 12:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Reason was WP:NOT a how-to guide; essay-style and not encylopedic content, which was further endorsed by a ((prod2)). I make it three, however this isn't a speedy candidate, so I bring it here. Delete. Daniel 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Daniel 07:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the most bizarre articles that I have ever come across, which is saying something given my work on wikifying and cleaning up articles. It is a list of topics that are mentioned in a book called Foucault's Pendulum, which is about conspiracy theories. I do not think that it is encyclopedic in any way. It is a trivia list for fans of the book. There is nothing wrong with that, but such things do not belong in Wikipedia. A message on the talk page mentions making sure that all of the topics have articles. I have no objection to the list being moved to the Wikipedia namespace, but the topics that already have articles should be removed, and the list should be deleted after all of the topics have articles. Also, I would suggest putting the list in alphabetical order rather than by chapter, unless knowing where the topics are mentioned would help in the writing of the articles. I do not think that it would since the book is fictional and should not be used as a reference. Finally, the quotations at the top should be removed. -- Kjkolb 07:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, clearly a hoax with limited (if any) notability, no need to let this go further. --Coredesat 06:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no Google hits, smells like a hoax. Also, deleted once, restored per creator's request to add sources, but this wasn't done. Exploding Boy 20:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced crystal ballyness synthesis on every page, are very unlikely to be unstubbed before October. Several titles aren't even sourced, for god's sake. Will (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generic modding site. No assertion of notability is made apart from list of number of members. Certainly non-notable and possibly spam. ck lostsword • T • C 23:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]