The result was Speedy Delete per G1/G12. Naconkantari 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, not noteworthy
Max Elstein 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. --Wafulz 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity, non notable, lack of independent sources
Nominating on multiple grounds:
dramatic 09:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Note: A prod template was removed without any improvement to the article.[reply]
The result was keep, consensus reads that subject is notable but article may need cleanup. To what extent needs to be decided by editors, as significant extra information and refs have been added since nomination. Orderinchaos 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination after removal of db-spam from article as part of my continued drive to clean up Category:Companies of Australia. A non-notable chain of surf stores in a single state. Article does not meet WP:CORP, lacks any references, and does not demonstrate notability, and would be unlikely to do. Another example of corpcruft. Thewinchester (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Still a delete - putting references on this discussion page does not improve the article nor does it allow editors to consider the references (which probably would work better as inline citations) with regards the content of the article. Put these in as citations and you might have a better chance. At this stage as per OIC it still fails WP:CORP --VS talk 08:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nomination after being CSD'd with db-spam and recreated. Article fails WP:CORP. A very minor chicken shop chain operating in only one state, this article is written like an advertisement, has no information which demonstrates notability (and sponsoring the football club of a private school does not confer notability by association either), lacks any significant references, and is a privately held company of which little is known or can be found about. It's just another of the many examples of corpcruft infesting Wikipedia. Thewinchester (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as hoax. —Ocatecir Talk 06:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and totally unsourced. Clearly made-up silliness and original research. I have lived in New Mexico and California all my life, and played pool with many, many real Mexicans, and they don't play pool this way. Furthermore, any even intermediate player could run this game out 10 times in a row; the only people who could consider this game even a real game would be rank newbies. It's just goofiness, and certainly non-encyclopedic. PS: Note that author isn't even sure of the facts: "Perhaps this game is known by another name." Abandoned by author since Nov. 2006. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All attempts to find reliable sources to which article information can be verified have failed, term being used can be reliably sourced, but no reliable sources actually talk about the term in ways that allow an encyclopedic entry.--Cerejota 23:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Procedural close. This is a reopened old AFD, I will revert to the previous dif which was a request to blank the AFD page per a ticket. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All secondary sources in this article are trivial and all non-trivial sources are primary sources. Fails all notability standards. Speedy delete Devlindetails (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this show is in pre-production. A fair chance there may be some confusion with Gossip Girl, but when the show doesn't even show up in Amber Heard's IMDb profile, there's probably a reason why. badlydrawnjeff talk 22:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 00:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religious teacher. No third party sources available, the only source is subject's short autobiography on his own website. Subject has written a dissertation and one book, and has established a non-notable retreat center. The subject's notability does not meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No external secondary source coverage that I could find per WP:RS; the only link given is to the council itself. Crystallina 22:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. Stellatomailing 22:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources indicate that this is the title of her sophmore album. The article is complete speculation, rumors, and crystal ballery. Admc2006 21:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these pages violate WP:CRUFT and runs afoul of WP:NN. User:B49, and an unregistered IP address (User:68.237.111.217) he/she may be using to make similar edits, created this page and three other similar pages that are also up for AfD. Rollosmokes 21:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. If you have no opinion about a page, it would be better not to nominate it for deletion. — CharlotteWebb 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. The notability of the subject was asserted sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion: she apparently co-wrote several hit songs, and her death was covered in Billboard Magazine. I'm moving this to AFD instead. No opinion. AecisBrievenbus 21:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. — Caknuck 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repost and copvio, see 1st AFD below. Samuel 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's my first article and it's not gonna be perfect. I'm trying to fix it now. Cheers, JetLover (Talk) (Sandbox) 21:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as copyvio, not to mention spam --Steve (Stephen) talk 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fancurft, reads like an advertisment, hard to fix, only source is officail site. Samuel 20:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Mallanox 15:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Wikipedia:Fancruft. This information was originally in, and should be kept within, the main WNYW article, and is not notable enough for a stand-alone page. Same criteria as WNBC news team, WCBS-TV News Team, and WABC-TV News Team. Rollosmokes 20:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Pretty marginal, with one record and a (future) tour as part of a package, but worthwhile I guess. Herostratus 13:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, no claims of notability, no independent sources. Was db-tagged way back in December, but the creator of the article removed the tag. Corvus cornix 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN record label, spam, advert, fails WP:CORP Lugnuts 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. By the way we redirect songs by notable artists, not delete them, if the songs are deemed not notable enough for standalone articles. W.marsh 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information here is contained in the article Gloria Trevi, this page seems redundant. Paul Tracy|\talk 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mallanox 15:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO by a large margin. Justin Berry may be notable; this person is not. He was a minor operative in Berry's organization and a porno performer who fails WP:PORN by a country mile. This article appears to exist mainly to shill for Richard's unnotable web sites and to generally hijack the Wikipedia for use in the Berry - Richards fight, which appears to be a minor catfight of limited interest to the world at large. Herostratus 19:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax, no verifiable information located TeaDrinker 19:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. Carried out by Reedy Boy (CSD A1). nadav (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a place to collect computer code. This is not an encyclopedia article. (WP:NOT) nadav (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD A7 and possibly G10. (Note that, despite assertions below, it does get quite a few g-hits, simply due to being a common name. The specific Chris Kane referred to on the deleted page seems to have been this one.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is useless IMHO and has no verifiable sources. -- Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Madmikeuk needs more cowbell. 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Better no article than a bad article, but obviously better a decent, sourced article than no article... Fram 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded because "Fails WP:BIO. He built two soon abandoned trading posts, and has many descendants. WP:NOT a genealogical site." Prod removed with quite uncivil comment at the talk page, with as main reason "Jaco Finlay is THE most important Native American in at least an eight hundred mile radius.". As for why no indication of this fact is presented in the article, which is over a year old: "It's not done fast enough? I think that's racist!". As I'm not impressed by these arguments, I present the article here at AfD for wider discussion. Fram 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Weatherman90 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP IT--This guy is famous in Portland AND is very well known through the entire pro wrestling community. He was influential in getting many famous wrestlers their start. If people think he isn't notable, they don't know what they are talking about.
KEEP Sandy Barr's has been a landmark and a gathering place (Tuesday night wrestling matches) for many years in St. Johns, the northernmost neighborhood in Portland, OR. If St. Johns is worthy of a page (and it has one) then I think Sandy Barr is notable enough.
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is nothing more than a list of a few names and there is not much more that can be added. Dream out loud 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Criteria have changed since this articles last afd. Epbr123 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article uses excessive praise and is a vanity article for the person calling themselves zion-coder. He is also completely non-notable. Patar knight 17:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely unnecessary. All of the images are available on the commons and a simple link to a commons gallery will suffice. Per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The similar page, William Miller late period engravings should be deleted, too. Rkitko (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, as per the consensus here. Drachentaube appears to be a neologism and the article is not supported by multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources. HTH HAND. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable "mythological" beast; not enough reliable, independent sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a feeling of hoaxiness about this article. Rhinoracer 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot really say any more than I have on Talk:Drachentaube. It is very depressing. Ednan 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. WaltonAssistance! 16:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another nomination for soap opera couples. Both these articles are about fictional couples from the soap opera The Young and the Restless. The characters and actors have their own articles, and these articles are just a chunk of plot summary and as such fail WP:NOT. EliminatorJR Talk 16:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Note: withdrawing nom for above article per extensive rewrite. AfD remains open for article below. EliminatorJR Talk 21:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a participant of WikiProject Soap operas, and our goal is to improve all these soap opera articles, couple or not. My own article was nominated for deletion here not too long ago as well, but it rather ended up with the result of "Keep" due to it now meeting Wikipedia standards, as well as WikiProject Soap Opera standards. The original nominator of that article for deletion, DES, a well-respected administrator here at Wikipedia even declared it as the best any of these type of articles can be.
EliminatorJR, I cite that you're acting in good faith, I understand your concerns on this matter clearly, but I ask that you re-consider tagging some of these supercouple soap opera articles for deletion, unless they just out-right need deletion, and instead rather tag them with "Plot" and or "In the need of expert attention", anything that is about clean-up as opposed to deletion, as we aim to improve these articles. Flyer22 09:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article now provides creation, real-world context and impact. Let me know if you're willing to reconsider it as a keep, EliminatorJR. Although, the Nick and Sharon article still needs fixing up. It might be best to have these two articles separate in their deletion debates, since I might not have the time to fix up the Nick and Sharon article.Flyer22 19:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really change the summary of this article all that much. I just re-worded it in present tense, and I didn't feel that I needed to add that much to the summary as of now, since plot summaries are limited anyway. Flyer22 00:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep but move to more standard name. W.marsh 17:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reasons I nominated both WABC-TV News Team and WNBC news team, which were WP:CRUFT and questionable notability to the Wikipedia community as a whole. This information was previously in the main WCBS-TV article and could be re-merged into it as well, but a stand-alone page should not exist. Many of the bios that are linked within this article should be looked at as well for WP:NN compliance. Rollosmokes 16:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 03:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really see how being added to anybody's top ten is particularly notable. Navou 15:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Executed by Kurykh (claim: CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion.) --Aarktica 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability per WP:CORP. Zero g-hits. Wall Street Journal article cited cannot be found and appears to be bogus. Previously speedied. Evb-wiki 15:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article should definitely be deleted. Anon345 15:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Know what, just delete it because it's too small a corporation to be considered fit for an article in an encyclopedia, and also it's probably going to fail since it is going to be working for 10 months without money until it released its final project. So since I am the creator of this article, I give my concensus for it to be deleted. So if an admin sees this, delete Heeshem at once. --Mack540 15:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh can we just ask an admin to delete this?--Mack540 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Resurgent insurgent 03:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPAM and WP:BIO (notability) Javit 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per A7 (web). Peacent 17:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article cites no sources. Non-notable web comic; only 10 Google hits -- MisterHand 14:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable game mod. Weregerbil 14:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Minerva, the multiplayer mod, is notable, but this is not? How so, what is the difference? Gutted 17:22, 3 June 2007 (GMT+1)
The result was closed; no reason for deletion offered, as this is essentially a request for clean-up. RΞDVΞRS ✖ ЯΞVΞЯSΞ 21:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not so much for deletion, but for discussion. This article is rather bad, completly an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and has seems to be just self-promotion. I don't completely think is is deleteable, but needs a major reworking. Reywas92Talk 18:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete under CSD G5. MaxSem 19:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. For a show that supposedly was made by Hanna Barbara for 27 years, no sign of it appears anywhere on their web page, or Cartoon Network that supposedly aired it, in fact no google search for "Bloody Ghost" turns up anything related to this supposed show, and with no sources cited (and the supposed logo looking like something made in MS Paint) this appears to be a blatant hoax. Also nominating Bloody Ghost (disambiguation) which only references above article. Nominating the MS Paint logo too. Wingsandsword 13:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Krimpet (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a thing on the article's subject from any reliable source, let alone coverage by multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources. The article's author is on record on the talk page stating that the article is written from personal experience, and that reliable sources do not exist. From anything I can find, I have to agree with him. The subject is thus unverifiable, non-notable, and impossible to write about without the use of original research. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject. Player has never appeared in major leagues. He has also never done anything notable. Fbdave 13:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely associated topics. The songs on this massive list have absolutely nothing in common with each other beyond the coincidence of having a "geographical name" of some sort in their titles. They do not share subject matter or theme in common. It indiscriminately captures songs titled with any geographical feature from a street to a continent, across multiple languages. Lists for songs titled after landmarks and fictional places have been deleted and this list is an order of magnitude worse. Otto4711 13:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources establishing the notability of this fictional television program. Otto4711 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted as an attack page and BLP violation. If it turns out it was a hoax instead of an attack on a real person, no harm done. Newyorkbrad 17:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a hoax. Cannot find this person on Google and it has only been edited by a single use user. There are also certain passages in the article which are extremely hard to believe if they are true e.g. "he worked as a Dentist for 7 months before being struck off for being caught on CCTV, putting his schlong into a male patients mouth while he was unconcious" and "attempting to spunk in his own gullet" PTSE 12:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my religious faith, I consider the Hebrew Bible the most reliable source that exists. However, by Wikipedian standards, it's rather flimsy for suggesting that the identity of Rehoboam's "Akrabim" were long rods with metal balls inside, or whatever. Either source it or delete it. YechielMan 12:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another non-notable band. The statements of national tour are not attributed, and the interview in the Chicago Sun-Times that would have taken place in 2006 does not show up in a Google search. YechielMan 12:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who fails to meet any other notability criteria Google [14] doesn't show up anything unrelated to the election Valenciano 11:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unsuccessful candidate in the recent Irish election who doesn't satisfy any other notability criteria Valenciano 11:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Also very un-notable. It's a stub that lacks any information other than that he was in the elction. It should be deleted without discussion! Meldshal42 11:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable.--Svetovid 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unsuccessful candidate in the recent election who does not appear to satusfy any other notability criteria. The only thing that google turns up are pages on her written by her own party Valenciano 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Yes. Very true. This article lacks more notability than a tissue. It's also a stub; and Sandra McLellan has not done anything important. It should be deleted. Meldshal42 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to provide external sources, I have already speedied a good bunch of articles related to this one. Article claims that the subject was killed and returned to his brother in 10 bags, but a google search shows nothing[15], which is strange considering that such a case would be likely to at least be mentioned in the media. Delete for being non-notable! Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 10:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. I'm closing the AfD since the nominator has changed his vote to keep, and keep is obviously the consensus anyway. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Way too short, not much band information, less than 10 words, and the page seems not have no one contributing to it to make it grow into a real encyclopedic or informative article.Migospia †♥ 10:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 17:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is blatant advertising; in addition, the article's creator removed the speedy deletion template. Anthony Rupert 09:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Prod reason was: Completely unreferenced (WP:V). Google search reveals 10 hits, exactly 0 of which are reliable sources.. Prod was removed by an anonymous user without comment or addition of sources. Marasmusine 08:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable PalaceGuard008 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nothing to delete. If you want to merge this somewhere, discuss it or boldly merge it. W.marsh 17:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit, user Wikidrone added the AfD template to the page Signals and slots with the comment "duplicate of the Observer Pattern". I am just completing his nomination pro forma. I personally think that a suggestion to merge signals and slots with observer pattern would have been more appropriate. As for the page signals and slots itself I say weak keep, don't merge. I agree that Qt's signals and slots mechanism is just an example of a concrete realization of the observer pattern, but I think the widespread use of the Qt application framework establishes enough relevance for this page. I however think that the page needs to be rewritten to make this relationship with the observer pattern clearer. Tobias Bergemann 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, with a significant interest in renaming it to a better title. Please do so as you see fit. — CharlotteWebb 02:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really a biography, but a detailed account of the circumstances surrounding Ms. Blackman's murder. While there are ample news sources about this event and subsequent court cases, etc., this article should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a sensationalist tabloid. Articles that contain information such as "The man, whose name Lucie did not share with anyone, had offered her a prepaid mobile phone if she would accompany him to a restaurant near the beach" do not, in my opinion, serve an encyclopedic purpose. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoary 05:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has had no sources or references for over a year, and has been tagged as lacking sources for 5 months. It is unverifiable, and questionable as to if it even fits the qualification of a notable person for a biography due to a complete lack of additional information during the past year. Unsourced history articles are inherently worthless, and can (and do) propogate incorrect information. Furthermore, unsourced articles about people who lack much in the way of notability have no real purpose or place on Wikipedia. Kuuzo 06:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Unfortunately, "I like it" and "I found it useful" doesn't cut it. This isn't a Linux howto guide nor a free web host, it's an encyclopedia: that means we only cover important subjects, in a neutral (non promotional) way, using reliable sources. This appears to fail on all 3 counts. kingboyk 15:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability must precede article creation. Chealer 05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A7 doesn't apply, but there's a clear consensus here that this is WP:OR and non-notable. Krimpet (talk) 09:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable class of web games. Completely original research that lacks any sources. Fails WP:NOR, WP:N and WP:V. Does not assert reasons for notability, so possibly a candidate for speedy deletion per CSD A7. Chardish 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 05:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move. W.marsh 16:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reasons similar to the AfD request for WABC-TV News Team. The information in this article should be moved onto the WNBC page, in case no movement is made on the Merge Into request, then this article should be deleted and its contents can be reconstructed. Rollosmokes 05:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Sarah 05:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax, there appears to be a real 25-year old Lyndal Eckersley, but she is not a pioneer teacher.--Grahamec 05:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move. W.marsh 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article falls under Wikipedia:Fancruft. The information can already be found within the main WABC-TV article, and creating a separate page for this non-notable information is not only a waste of space, but only serves a small group of people and not the entire Wikipedia community. There are also various links to articles about these personalities, and most of those should also be deleted for the same reasons, and probably more. Rollosmokes 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 00:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have an axe to grind. I tagged this page for speedy A7 deletion, it was declined, and someone used it as a reason to oppose my RFA. After examining the issue more carefully, I am now convinced that he is, indeed, not notable. The source given in the article says that he was confused by the Associated Press as being the recently deceased Edward Behr (journalist). As far as I can tell, Edward Behr has written just two books - the Artful Eater and the Art of Eating - neither of which is particularly notable. The parameters of CSD A7 aside, WP:BIO should destroy this article, and the associated disambig page should become a redirect. YechielMan 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. keeping the redirect will be useful for people who search for this term. W.marsh 17:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub on non-notable dead Linux distribution. Google hits for "Flash Linux" are not too low, but mostly come from Adobe Flash and this article. Chealer 03:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for nomination is that the team isn't notable enough as of yet. Teams like that come and go, so an article for the team shouldn't be created yet. Jลмєs Mลxx™ Msg me 03:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to his lack of interviews and appearances, over the years, I gather this person wants his privacy. He is not a public figure anymore thus the article should go. Fighting for Justice 03:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (approved in IRC by Raul654). Non admin closure. Whsitchy 19:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reason GTTofAK 02:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into the long story of events surounding this lets keep it short and simple.
In October of 2004 "journalist" Greg Palast of the BBC accused members of the Bush 2004 Flordia election campaign of engaging in voter fraud based on e-mails he acquired from GeorgeWBush.org. These e-mails reportedly contained a list of names and the word caging. Palast claimed that caging was a form of voter fraud. His story was rejected by almost all major news serviced because none of them could verify his claim that caging meant what he said, see this October 27 2004 Salon.com article. Hours after Palast was rejected by most all major news services due to their inability to verify this definition of caging someone came to wiki and created a this page to back up Palast claim.
It is clear that this article does not meet Wiki standards. All the links are from within the Palast circle mainly his original BBC claim and GeorgeWBush.org. It is clear that this article is a blatant attempt misuse wikipedia and create evidence to support a false claim. Unless some real evidence outside of Palast's circle and be supplied to bolster this definition of Caging it should be deleted. Wikipedia should not be abused in this way.
Might I remind the admins that this article is being used all over the internet to accuse real people of real crimes.
Goodling didn't admit that the practice existed only that the accusation had been made. She defined her understanding of the term in the true sense of the word. "it's a direct-mail term, that people who do direct mail, when, when they separate addresses that may be good versus addresses that may be bad"
That is not the same thing as this.
"Vote caging is an illegal trick to suppress minority voters (who tend to vote Democrat) by getting them knocked off the voter rolls if they fail to answer registered mail sent to homes they aren't living at (because they are, say, at college or at war)."
Every campaign partakes in the practice of caging in its true mail order sense of the word. That does not make it a form of voter fraud or a term used to describe a form of voter fraud. This article needs to be taken down before this fraud spreads any further. Congragulations you have 5 links where people are basically parroting Palasts allegation or in the case of one reference the wikipedia article. Do you have any evidence that this term has ever been used in that sense outside of this circle? If not this needs to be taken down for the same reason the story was rejected 3 years ago. Wikepedia is not a crock pot where crack pots like Palast can dump in some false information then let simmer for 3 years then recycle the story using it as a source.GTTofAK 04:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable manga by non-notable creators. Google searches: "Twilight eve" manga, "Anthony Zapata" manga, "Shatee Harris". The article admits "a decision has not yet been made" about whether this will be published. (WP:BK#Not yet published books) nadav (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#DIR; List of loosely associated topics. Just because some unrelated musical acts happened to have played at a small venue at some point in their careers is not a strong enough connection or identifying characteristic to create a list of those artists. Many of the most significant artists are already mentioned in the main article; any other major performances can also be added there. Masaruemoto 01:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A short biography which devotes most of its space to the subject's self-published novel. Fails WP:BIO. Victoriagirl 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because as it fails to meet WP:BIO. Both are the creation of Dchi7, a single purpose account.:
This article needs some touching up. However, I think that information needs to be added to it; but that it be deleted? True; what's there now is a pathetic excuse for such a strong, wonderful writer, but if some people improve the article, it won't have to be deleted. Understand? Meldshal42 11:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedy Delete per CSD A7 Naconkantari 03:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A one sentence article on a self published book. Fails WP:BK Victoriagirl 01:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Wizardman 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like a brochure. If this were about a company I'd tag it for speedy-delete with db-sapm. No indication thsat this Middle school is in any way significantly different from the tens of thousands of other such schools. Non-notable DES (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Very few people know about this computer game software." That says it all. Non-notable. A google search for "SnagglySnort -wikipedia -ebay" gets a whole 21 hits, and the only 2 that look promising are restricted to paid magazine subscribers. DES (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I will reconsider if someone can show me published sources with non-trivial information. W.marsh 17:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable illustrator who created an obscure children's series. Article reads like a resume, and it has such detailed personal information I suspect it was created by a friend or family member. No reliable sources found to confirm notability, just trivial references. Masaruemoto 00:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 01:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article is not even a dictionary definition - something Wikipedia is not - but rather just a combination of English words and their meanings. It has zero encyclopedic merit, even for the Wiki Dictionary. Haemo 00:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - NO CONSENSUS might have been hepful had the delete argument actually given some coherent reasons -Docg 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability anywhere. I've been maintaining this article for months trying to get it into shape, and it's remained dorm-cruft. Stlemur 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ╦ 12:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is titled blue dwarf, but it's about blue giants. Do blue dwarfs actually exist? Voortle 01:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by somebody. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International auxilary language less than 1 month old. No assertion of notability. Only reference is 'official website'. 0 ghits for "Temenia language", or "Temenia site:.edu". Contested prod. If this were a club or corporation, this would be a speedy A7. Delete Aagtbdfoua 01:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is this event so far an unconfirmed event with only generic information known, which is not allowed per WP:NOT#CBALL, but it looks like people have been adding patently false info to the page, including a fake event poster. Prod was removed without reason. hateless 01:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete / redirect to Nashi (Ours). Did you know that Red Grant's pseudonym of "Nash" in From Russia with Love was a clue he was a Russian agent? Neil ╦ 12:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable Russian language neologism. There are quite a few Russian language texts from various journalists who use this term "нашизм" (nashism/nashists) for various purposes. All of them are hardly notable and there is no single understanding. And most surely the quoted author is hardly notable for her version to be wikipedized. `'юзырь:mikka 03:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and redirect to Nashi (Ours). Some may consider it is a neologism, but would be a useful search term, since by definition a neologism is a term that is wide use, so support it as a redirect after a merge. Martintg 07:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as an evidence that the term didn't really catch up with solid political analysts, I failed to google any text that contains both words "nashism" and "Jingoism", while it is 100% self-evident from the programme of Nashi that nashism is jingoism made in Russia: "Russia must be strong, Russia is nexus of civilizations, Russia can make it all alone, etc." `'юзырь:mikka 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK ...that Nashism and Nashists existed and were heatedly discussed as early as in 1962? (and wikipedia already knows that :-) `'юзырь:mikka 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expired prod but the rationale for it was "no indication of why this is a notable book" which I find unconvincing. This might just barely meet WP:BK: references with passing mention to this work are easy to come by (see e.g. [62] [63] [64]) and author does have some notability. Procedural nom. Pascal.Tesson 04:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was notability sufficiently demonstrated; keep. DS 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blogger Naconkantari 05:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4.243.173.101 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP! The right wing is trying to obliterate this man's memory now? What has this country come to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.78.211 (talk • contribs) — 68.36.78.211 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Biruitorul 18:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Web: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
People: Creative professionals: scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
Additionally, I note the presence of the following "bloggers" and their rather extensive entries in Wikipedia: Atrios, Kos, Mary Scot O'Connor, Little Green Footballs, Protein Wisdom, and Captain's Quarters.
Finally, I note I have been tagged with the "single user" label. I have made minor edits and contributions over the past few years, mainly to Music and Comics sites (specifically, I recall adding to posts on Brian Wilson and Jack Kirby). I only signed up for an account because I thought it was necessary to comment on this matter. Ironically, if I had maintained my anonimity, my commenting status would have been overlooked. I apologize for identifying myself. Dave1021 20:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page gives some rough guidelines which most Wikipedia editors use to decide if any form of web-specific content, being either the content of a website or the specific website itself should have an article on Wikipedia. Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. emphasis added - fnv
So it is a set of standards for whether a web site, web page, blog post or some such should have an article. Thus, if this was a discussion of whether The News Blog itself should have a page, then WP:WEB would be relevant. It is not, as the article is about Gilliard, a person, whose notability is a seperate topic from the notability of his primary blog. WP:BIO is the pertinent basis of discussion I believe. --FNV 02:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacking said demonstration and the skipping of the proper step of tagging the article with the notability template, I recommend that this the AfD tag be removed from the article in order to rectify this error as soon as possible ∴ Therefore talk 03:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply][Before nomination of AfD,] first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. Notability is not subjective. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and vanity. see also another afd candidate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohd. Nizam Shapie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pusat Cemerlang Silat __earth (Talk) 07:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and vanity. See also related afd candidate: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nur Fiqah Qari Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pusat Cemerlang Silat __earth (Talk) 07:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A training center is that non-notable. See related entry: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nur_Fiqah_Qari, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohd. Nizam Shapie __earth (Talk) 07:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's much more that can be said about this tiny dead-end street in Manchester, unless someone goes and fills the article with obscure details like the type of tarmac used to cover it. Digital Spy Poster 11:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable constructed language that can be played with a musical instrument rather than being spoken. No reliable sources cited. 0 relevant hits in Google Scholar or JSTOR. Only relevant hit at site .edu is here, which is an essay from a staff member in the School for Design and Media arts, not an expert in this field. Does appear to be discussed on various webpages and blogs. In contrast, Solresol, a similar musical language, gets 7 JSTOR hits, despite being invented a hundred years before the internet and electronic journals. Delete Aagtbdfoua 11:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable martial arts school per WP:CORP, suspected WP:COI authorship. RJASE1 Talk 13:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable martial arts school per WP:CORP, suspected WP:COI authorship. RJASE1 Talk 13:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, potential sockpuppetry between Controllerman and Michaeljbroderick. Sr13 01:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiography, notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Reads like a resume. RJASE1 Talk 13:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a number of things that can be said regarding your contributions to the industry, etc. - but there is an easy way to set that dispute without fighting: please provide WP:RS that you have the notability to be in Wikipedia. Stellatomailing 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. C'est "spam", je penses. Sr13 01:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is little more than direct quotes from press releases and other promo. Tagged for CSD yesterday as blatant advertising (G11), but the tag was disputed. Suggest deletion as spam. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established or sourced per WP:BIO. Autobiography. RJASE1 Talk 14:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 14:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record producer per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 14:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete. —Ocatecir Talk 07:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record company per WP:MUSIC. RJASE1 Talk 14:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website per WP:WEB. RJASE1 Talk 15:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This invention is not an original invention but a simple sequencing using MIDI support. Many other musicians have performed, using MIDI support and/or disklavier pianos, before Mr. Taussig. Alegreen 18:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 17:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is student ephemera that has never done anything notable, never been observed independently from outside its University, has failed to ever win any award the sole award it was incidentally nominated for (and that was just in a student-friendly newspaper). The article contains no informative material beyond the fact that it is the student newspaper at the University of Bristol, which article is already clear on the point. The editors of the article insistently refuse to allow it to be a redirect (largely by insisting it be deleted instead), have removed the PROD tag without explanation or justification and so deletion is the only route remaining. It's useless as a redirect anyway, since noone would ever search for such a parenthetical phrase. Note that the glut of apparent media references are all 'shortlists' for the award it failed to win, and thus not actually about Epigram. -Splash - tk 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable constructed language for use in machine translation. Only references are self-published. The language also goes by four other names. No relevant hits on .edu sites via google for any of the language names. No relevant hits in JSTOR for any of the language names. No relevant hits for the author in JSTOR so he's probably not a renowned expert where we might infer notability even for a self-published source. Delete Aagtbdfoua 21:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 21:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable humour topic / non-notable list greenrd 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETE. Krimpet (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is filled with flaws. First, it includes a number of attacks that have been seen only once and never again, like Jan-Ken. Thus, it is an indiscriminate collection of information. Second, the article lacks any real sources; the only sources listed at bottom are from fansites, which are not independent and therefore not useful (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The article also contains 45 non-free images, which seems a bit excessive to me, and also is written primarily in-universe. Based on the above reasons, I nominate this article for deletion. Hemlock Martinis 00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 00:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stubby article with no references whatsoever to indicate which storm this article is referring to. I almost speedy deleted this one but thought it best to bring to AfD in case there's more to this than meets the eye. - Longhair\talk 00:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]