The result was Speedy Delete done by MZMcBride -- pb30<talk> 16:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another hoax created by RabbitHawk. I would have speedied it but it's not an obvious enough hoax to count as a speedy. Masaruemoto 02:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable; no references CBSfan 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
written by someone named Terrance Lindall, this seems like a vanity page written by a relative. Postcard Cathy 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. The two merge commentors were split, suggesting merge into different articles. That leaves Delete. Herostratus 02:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered nominating this article for deletion on and off for a while now. It's borderline but IMO, it crosses the line into listcruft and 'an indiscriminate collection of information'. I can find no record online of many of these supposed 'cover versions' and 'remixes' and I suspect that there's been quite a bit of false information added since the article was created. Kurt Shaped Box 23:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. The keepers have failed to fully meet the nominator's objections with two of the three keepers arguing against deletion based on allowing more time for development. TerriersFan 16:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT#INFO. The article is a plot summary; policy states that articles on fiction and media "should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot." I see no sources available that would enable creation of such an article. Contested prod. MastCell Talk 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As Schoolcruft. A bad article asserting no notability, no citations or references to reliable sources, or anywhere information can be verified. Thewinchester (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced, non notable, reads like an advertisement ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Normally a closer doesn't do this, but I looked at the full NYT article via Proquest and it was a trivial mention that only compounds the confusion here, we just need better sources than the ones that we have so far. If anyone wants to work on this article I will make the content available to you. W.marsh 22:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this person is "now a monument in the Gospel arena". But there are no sources to support it (are there ever?) Guy (Help!) 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster 07:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generic professor. Worthy, but not encyclopaedic. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is now our 8th "International reaction to..." article. Like all the others, it deals with a 2006/7 event. Like all the others, it's also probably unnecessary. It smacks of recentism (shouldn't we first have "International reactions to the German invasion of Poland", "International reactions to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor", "International reactions to the North Korean invasion of South Korea", etc?). Many of the reactions, from countries like Tajikistan, Israel, Norway or Georgia, are not of encyclopedic value. I wouldn't mind keeping a couple of key reactions in the main body of the text - let's say one each from Estonia, Russia and the EU, and indeed those are still there. However, the Bronze Soldier already has an 80kb article and the story is, all things considered, not such a big deal. Let's keep some perspective here and delete this lengthy digression. WP:NOT#IINFO, if you want a specific policy basis. Biruitorul 23:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 22:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere near being notable. It's a goat, for Pete's sake. Prod contested. Sean William @ 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. >Radiant< 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned for many months, I don't see this as a notable organization based on what is presented in the article. If it was more notable, even as is, other articles would link to it. Combine the orphan status and lack of notability shown in the article, I don't see why this is a wiki worthy article. Postcard Cathy 20:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. >Radiant< 12:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose delete on grounds that this is not a notable trade association. Article has list of big retailers as members, but cites no external references other than its webiste. I think this could also be deleted as spam, as in some ways you could say the article is an advert for a (shadowy) lobby group.--Gavin Collins 20:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete & redirect, lack of content to merge. >Radiant< 12:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already sent the parent organization's article, Aqualand, to AfD. There's enough lag that I'm giving this article its own due process. Non-notable water park, no secondary sources cited. —C.Fred (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Simpsons fancruft, very little of note on the page. Pretty much the only reason it exists is because there is a real life Albuquerque Isotopes. However, that is really minor and can easily be mentioned at the section on the Springfield page. It seems unnecessary for this page to exist when there is already a section. Scorpion0422 23:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete AfD by unregistered user. Previously, a different unregistered user who claims to be the individual in question on the article's talk page requested that the article be deleted. This is a procedural nomination. Therefore, I abstain. Seed 2.0 23:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The grounds of this company's notability is contested and there has been thus far a demonstrated inability to provide verifiable reliable independent sources to establish notability. The article has been speedily deleted previously for copyright violation/no notability assertion. There is some form of notability assertion now, but the validity of it has been discussed a great deal, see Talk:Corporate Creations. Just as a note (not a deletion criteria, but still something to keep in mind), this article was created (and recreated) by User:Jimsfins4 who is an admitted employee of the company in question, so I take his assertions of the company's notability with a grain of salt in the absence of sources that I can see. At this point, I don't believe the company is notable given that the only seemingly non-trivial source I can verify is a paid advertisement section in Fortune magazine that was sponsored not by the company, but by an organization that they are a member of: [7] Cquan (after the beep...) 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - possible hoax, probable nonsense, certainly not encyclopedic. Dweller 13:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax. I find no such reference in a Google search. The claims are specious and there is no verification via reliable sources. JodyB talk 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of this article is an unverifiable and unnotable collection of bootleg recordings (i.e.: not released by the band) and the whole article is basically OR. Fails WP:MUSIC. The band that recorded them is notable, the songs themselves are perhaps notable, but a random bootleg collection of these songs is NOT notable and impossible to verify. All of the songs are available on a wide array of other bootlegs. Please discuss notability of the subject, not the individual songs as they are irrelevant to establishing whether this bootleg collection is verifiable and notable. The Parsnip! 16:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of it and seen it used as a source in numerous articles about Syd Barrett, Bob Klose, etc. 18,700 GHits. Notable collection. - Richfife 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted at author's request --Steve (Stephen) talk 05:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted a few days ago, recreated with different text, so not eligible under G4 - but then I attempted under CSD A7. A user deleted the CSD template, so I'm calling it contested, if not incorrectly. As near as I can tell, there is no notability for this company, and a Google search for this company turns up nothing that points to such an existence. Given circumstances and despite my opinion that this company is not notable, I am calling this procedural and am accordingly abstaining from !voting. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per the AfD on the main article. Sr13 20:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax, Google only returns Wikipedia result DuncanHill 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not notable that one artist simply sang a song of another artist. If a particular recorded cover is notable, then it should be mentioned in an article for the song and/or a discography for the recording artist. Otto4711 22:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This town appears to be a hoax, judging by the lack of ghits for it: [9] and the fact Multimap.com does not find it either:[10]. There are no sources cited, and the major English place-name books, including A.D. Mills Dictionary of English Place-Names and also Eilert Ekwall's book on the subject, do not seem to have anything on it, and neither do any of the other books/material on English place-names. Unless sources can be found for this, I think it should probably be deleted per Wikipedia:Don't create hoaxes. --SunStar Net talk 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable subject. This player was a minor league player who now plays in the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, an independent league. Fbdave 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient sourcing. I will reconsider if you can show me better sources. W.marsh 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable Notability: A local low budget TV show, shown after midnight (infer small audiences) with a non-notable cast. Senordingdong 21:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Award appears to meet the brick of WP:PORNBIO. (nonadmin) Navou 17:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current version contains no assertion of notability (say by WP:PORNBIO), thus the article qualifies for deletion. Fresh 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More random listcruft. If we kept lists like this we would have lists like List of songs about water or List of songs about night. Tim Q. Wells 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 08:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nn album by nn band. Corvus cornix 20:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn. John Vandenberg 19:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally ((prod))ed as non-notable non-standard medical term. Still appears non-notable, and I've run across other uses of the term in radiological diagnosis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm fine with that. I was considering adding it to a larger article talking about 'shorthand jargon of radiology' but if you'd like to merge it that's fine. I will be more cautious in the future. Chantoke 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 03:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable street. Just because the person it was named after is notable and it has a notable landmark, does not make the street, itself notable. No source presented has more than a passing mention of the street. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn, as merged. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be used with this definition only in a few sources, including the reference. It may have other meanings. ((prod)) removed by article creator and sole editor. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies. was looking for your argument on the article itself's discussion page. i agree with merging it into a main article like Voice recording or whatever if such exists. Do not think it should be deleted. Chantoke 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unsourced apparent vanity page, non-notable Smerus 20:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page, not encyclopedic, and not notable EvilOverlordX 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A term that's not historically used contemporaily, introduced by the novelilst Luo Guanzhong in his Romance of the Three Kingdoms that's not really independently significant. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) Keep Notable element of ROTK. Ling.Nut 11:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 02:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page not really needed as it is not a major part of the qualifying, it has its own section of the main article anyway Chaza93 19:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as no sources ever materialized W.marsh 17:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out on the talk page and confirmed by the company's website (in German), this is not an airline, but a travel agency. It does not operate aircraft, it charters them. No apparent notability under WP:CORP and no sources, either. Sandstein 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a procedural nom, since the original one was malformed. The original nomination was "Non noteable US reality star." I have no opinion, and abstain.Haemo 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A simple search engine search results in only 1 completely matching result, and that is a forum topic. Hence it's not covered by reliable sources and does not meet WP:N, let alone really happened. Had it happened there should be an easy to reach newspaper article or something about it, but there is not. --Kylohk 18:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all, no salting unless they are recreated again. Sr13 02:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All songs for Rihanna's newest album have been given articles which is completely unnessary. Aside from the first (current) single and already-confirmed second single, there is no reason whatsoever to have an article for each album track, especially as these pages have almost zero information. - eo 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep by means of uninanimous vote. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Currently fails WP:V and WP:N. Seems to be mostly original research and all provided sources are from the organization itself. WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS are not reasons to keep an article that fails core policies. The Parsnip! 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article appears to make no assertion of notability or of reliable sources discussing this MUD. JavaTenor 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not seem to be notable, or infamous for anything, and I could find no sources for it. Of course there will be some songs about suicide just as there will be some songs about grief and we don't have Grief song. Tim Q. Wells 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete - "A suicide song is a song about suicide. Here's two that pop into mind. They should also be deleted." --Haemo 22:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 22:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article on an utterly unnotable news story which was only kept because of the pointless Wikipedia navel gazing that happens on here, the same applies to the Essjay asininity. - hahnchen 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indescriminate list of things. This information, in and of itself, is not worth its own article on Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan 17:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a bio of a semi-notable living person, and was blanked by the subject - see this edit from IP address 129.215.138.206. Note that that IP address corresponds to hostname elvis.geos.ed.ac.uk and that the subject has an official web page at http://xweb.geos.ed.ac.uk/~ppalmer/
I see that the relevant policy is inconclusive:
but I would suggest deletion. — Alan✉ 17:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Sr13 03:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this worthy of a Wikipedia article? Voortle 16:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More of a discussion than an actual article. Voortle 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as nonsense. Sr13 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a hoax to me. Voortle 16:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Run of the mill kidnapper and pedophile. This one is famous because the producers of CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews thought the story would get good ratings, which it did. However, there are many thousands of pedophiles, and Wikipedia is neither a newspaper nor a registry of perverts. If this article is kept, it will be an endorsement of allowing Wikipedia content to be determined by the journalistic "ethics" (and I use the term loosely) and drive for ratings of people like Nancy Grace, Greta Van Sustern and Geraldo Rivera. Who's company do you want to keep? Thatcher131 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Recentism is the tendency by Wikipedians to edit articles without regard to long-term historical perspective, or to create new articles which inflate the importance and effect of an issue that has received recent media attention. Established articles become skewed towards documenting controversy as it happens, new articles are created on arguably flimsy merits, and the relative emphasis on (more or less) timeless facets of a topic which Wikipedia consensus had previously established is often muddled. Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are—but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists. What is recent is close, and what is close is hard to gain perspective on. Recentism is thus a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has both positive and negative aspects, as discussed below. Allegations of recentism should prompt consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight. Material may need to be moved, removed, or added. Certain articles may need to be placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for community consideration; conversely, new articles may need to be created to balance Wikipedia's coverage. Wikipedians are reminded that sometimes in-depth information on current events is more appropriately added to Wikinews."
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 21:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a crystal ball. Basically a summary of the end of season six, and total speculation on the next season. No bias against recreation in the Fall when the season actually starts, but for now this is total crystalballery. TexasAndroid 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of this page's supposed subjects is notable or seems likely to establish notability in the near future. Jamesmusik 16:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not notable simply that one artist sang another artist's song. If any of these are notable recorded covers, then they can be noted in an article for the song and/or in the discography of the cover artist. Otto4711 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was tagged for G7, non admin closure. Whsitchy 04:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
author deleted prod because he BELIEVES that the guy played number 1 singles at Auburn. He doesn't state that in his article nor does he provide sources. It still lacks notability. Postcard Cathy 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DRV overturned the prior AfD, in light of Runcorn-related sockpuppetry. This person is a non-notable actress, with only insignificant roles to her credit. Delete. Xoloz 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another indiscriminate collection of loosely-associated topics. The songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of having the name of a month in the title. Otto4711 15:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO GlassFET 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as (still) blatant advertising. Bad blatant advertising. Sandstein 19:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company.Originally speedied as spam but most advertising references removed. Still non-notable though. Dipics 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Navou 17:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references or sources - most of the google hits are Wiki mirrors. Biography mostly contains his arrest information and execution. Ozgod 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to assert importance or notability. No major works, awards or coverage cited in article. Fails to meet the requirements for WP:Notability Ozgod 14:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article's title appears to be about an organization while the article itself appears to be about a person. In addition, the image caption supposedly shows the person working inside a building but the image merely shows the building; there's no proof that that person is inside the building. Anthony Rupert 13:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 15:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pop group that does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Though the group's members claim close involvement with various events that themselves may indeed be notable, there is nothing much to verify this (no mention beyond a namecheck on the sites given), and this does not necessarily confer notability on the group itself. ~Matticus TC 13:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all, WP:V and WP:OR are the key issues here and it's clear that the articles don't meet either. --Coredesat 06:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cirque du Freak: Bloody Brawl was originally nominated for speedy deletion - with the following reason: google search reveals that the only mentions of the game at all are on Wikipedia. All edits made by a single user, blatantly false hoax article - which was changed to WP:PROD. Another user noted that the articles have been confirmed to be false (or an unverifiable rumor at best) here. Still, the author removed the deletion notice with no explanation. Delete, candidates for speedy deletion (as hoax/vandalism). - Mike Rosoft 12:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy delete, this AfD is a waste of time. --Ashenai 12:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. I believe the keep arguments are clearly stronger here, as Wikipedia is not paper, and we have precedent saying that this level of political achievement is reasonable. It's no surprise this is still a stub, but policy says that is okay. If this was an article about someone contemporary, that might be one thing, but the internet is not exactly bursting at the seams with information about Scotland's parliament in the 18th century, so this information would be difficult to replace. That said, the article is pretty short, and a merge may be attempted, following the usual WP:BRD process. Mangojuicetalk 17:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed for over a year and hasn't expanded very much. A shire commisioner for the Parliament of Scotland was an appointment given to lower ranks of the gentry and peerage. I have looked high and low for anything on this person that doesn't come from the Arbuthnot family book and I can't find anything (I initially thought I had but the Commissioner Arbuthnot/t or Arbuthnot/t, Commissioner all referred to other people). Delete and summarize at Viscount of Arbuthnott if necessary. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 09:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls Sport Victoria (GSV) Sports Champions below. MER-C 12:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable. Entirely unsourced. Original research. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO.⇒ KingTee Denny Crane. 04:29, 04 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was an obvious redirect, so I boldly did. Non-admin closure. Charlie 14:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user most likely heard this term while watching House, as I did. However the correct term is Akinetopsia, therefore this article is pretty useless. - Imoeng 12:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per WP:BIO - not notable. Contested prod. Javit 12:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated after prod. Original prod was "reality TV contestant and apparently struggling model. 63 unique Ghits, mostly wiki mirrors and CNTM related hits. Despite having come second, seems to have gone underground after the show". Same concerns exist: this losing contestant on a reality television show is not notable. She wasn't notable on the show, and hasn't done anything since the show to make herself notable among the other struggling models in a very saturated and competitive field. Mikeblas 12:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google search turns up one slang usage of this term (= "devotee of the Wankel rotary engine") but nothing that matches the sense given here. Most, if not all, hits for rotardation appear to be typos for retardation. This seems to be a hoax or joke article. Deor 12:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, article fails to establish notability, provide any sources, and google returns 5 hits, of which 3 are from Wikipedia.[17] Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 11:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the opening sentence in the History section says it all: "The history of hyderabadi martial arts is unknown to any one." I say let's have it stay that way and not introduce OR into Wikipedia. No sources are provided, and I see no possibility that this article will be redeemed anytime soon. Should sources crop up, it can always be recreated, preferably without appealing to mysterious and unnamed "masters". Ashenai 10:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a large Douglas Adams quote preceded by a simple summary of it. 'Sentient puddle' was a phrase used by Douglas Adams ten years ago, which doesn't seem to have entered any sort of wider usage since (the only sources given are from people directly quoting Adams and attributing the phrase to him) - it fails WP:NEO. The Douglas Adams article already has a section dedicated to the quote, covering the exact the same ground as the introductory paragraph, and the full quotation is already in Wikiquote. Delete. McGeddon 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced game guide stuffed full of fair use images. Ample precedent exists for deletion, see Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles. MER-C 08:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Ignoring WP:USEFUL arguments. utcursch | talk 14:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless, incomplete article that should be merged with Big Brother UK. No/few sources and not very noteable. Dalejenkins 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Consensus is pretty mixed on whether nobility is includable simply for being nobility from the debate here. That said, Viscount of Arbuthnott is not up for deletion. I see no remotely sensible reason presented why we should avoid having a redirect in place. And the keep comments seem to be defending the appropriateness of the material being on Wikipedia, not the appropriateness of a separate page in this instance. Merging is sensible. However, let me remind everyone that merging does not necessarily require a big debate, and this one was certainly a waste of time. Don't forget to be BOLD when appropriate. Mangojuicetalk 17:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To all those people that think that having a separate article for each peer of England is a good idea- please note that there have been 16 of these not particularly notable people. That's just for this title of the thousands of other titles out there. Yes, hereditary peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords, but the question we should ask is did they actually do anything NOTABLE if and when they ever sat in there. Many did not. This person is not notable in their own right so Delete and summarize this person at Viscount of Arbuthnott. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete He is not in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, even as a reference in an article. He was a Scottish Peer, and therefore not necessarily entitled to sit in Parliament. DGG 00:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and Delete. utcursch | talk 15:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable- delete as per other non notable Baronets. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a simple list - non of the packages listed here are notable enough to have there own entry on Wikipedia. Rehnn83 Talk 07:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. AfD is not a merry-go-round. This is essentially some "special" type of oxyhydrogen (whatever that means); go put the information there until reliable sources can be found. May I also warn that repeated recreation of this article without heeding policy (let alone badgering commenters whose opinions you don't agree with) can and will be construed as disruption, and blocks may and will be meted out to stop said disruption. —Kurykh 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither this article or Brown's gas survived multiple AfD's before, but people keep recreating it. Trying to keep an open mind I waited and gave the articles a chance to grow, this unfortunately did not happen. Since the recurring problems have not been solved I want some community input as to whether the article should be deleted again!! or can be allowed to stay. Included in this AfD is Brown's gas for the same reasons.
Among the violations of policy:
In short, if we take out what is not supported by independent non-promotional sources the articles would contain two sentences (hyperbole). Please comment on the need to keep such articles. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process.
Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted, and in some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive.
— Omegatron 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]If it is believed that a significantly better researched article would be verifiable and otherwise meet Wikipedia article criteria, then recreation for good cause and in good faith may well be reasonable. This underlines that research and good writing is part of creating good articles. Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article.
And I wish Nescio would make an honest attempt to understand this. Gnothi seauton. Man with two legs 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fnagaton 00:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huntja2 08:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cracking group, fails WP:BIO criteria. The rationale from the previous nomination 3 years ago still holds - Google brings up only Wikipedia mirrors for <DEViANCE CyberNaj> [33], and the article remains unsourced although people were asking for sources even back then. Resurgent insurgent 06:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
deviance cybernaj -wikipedia you get precisely two hits, both of which are non-compliant mirrors. 81.104.175.145 12:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was delete. W.marsh 22:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not suited for AFD, then I apologize. Anyways, what we got here is a gallery of flags flown by cities across the world. Encyclopedic, yes. Notable, yes. However, the reason why I am choosing this route is that is due to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. Many of these images are hosted on the Wikimedia Commons, a sister project of ours. Their main job is to host galleries of images people can find useful. If there is one point I can concede, the list at the Commons, which can be seen at Commons:Gallery_of_city_flags, will be missing images due to them not being transwikied or under a license that cannot be on the Commons (such as fair use). Linking issues can be solved and we have various templates to point others to the Commons. As a vexillologist, as some of you coming here are too, I understand these categorization is important for flags. We have a whole section of our study to classify flags under color, patterns, symbols and lettering. However, I feel the need for this page would be better suited on the Commons than here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Significance. Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable."
Since the chief distinguishing feature of any flag is its design, gallery presentation of this information is vital to the point of necessity, and not "merely decorative." We are not talking about a gallery of screen captures from a TV show here. Policy does not forbid the existence of this page. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 21:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dead Linux distribution. Note that this is the second nomination for this article, after being nominated and kept in January 2006. At this time it seemed unclear whether the distribution was dead or had still users. This should be clear now. Unless someone has new arguments, the argument from the first nomination which remains valid is the historical value of the article. The distro still has under 1000 Google hits for the fully qualified name, but there are about 350 000 hits for "tinfoil linux". Chealer 05:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. While numerical majority in AfD debates is a factor, it is not a sole factor. In this case, the questions of verifiability and original research have not been addressed, nor does it appear that they can be. This being the case, we cannot have such an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This 35KB article is merely an unsourced plot summary. Fails WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:WAF and so on. Precedent exists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Items and concepts in FLCL. Also has 27 fair use images, which may also fail WP:NONFREE. Content is too excessive for merging. MER-C 05:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Unsourced article about a non-notable local dance. Appears to be a violation of WP:NFT at best, or of WP:CB at worst. --Finngall talk 05:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proecedural Listing, Similar to PSA Sports Champions which was deleted before Savin Me 05:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. merger/redirection is an editorial decision that doesn't need an AFD. W.marsh 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 05:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. >Radiant< 12:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Single sentence + image gallery article that does not establish notability of subject and has been deleted thrice before. Should be deleted or merged with Dharti Ka Veer Yodha Prithviraj Chauhan. The article may even be a candidate for speedy deletion, in which case please feel free to close this nomination early. Finally, the images in the article are copyvios and should be speedied too. Abecedare 17:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sr13 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
author removed prod without making any changes to teh article. I have no idea why this guy is notable. There are millions of comedians and actors in the world and many of them are gay. If this is all that we know about him, then he should have been gone when the prod expired! Postcard Cathy 04:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of article is list of awards copied directly from the CTT website, many of which don't identify the awarding organization. Many of the others don't have WP articles. NACMAI hosts on GeoCities, which doesn't tend to point toward notability. Aside from list of awards, does not assert notability particularly well. Delete SarekOfVulcan 04:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Sr13 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches for Chipuismo and Chipuesca come up with no links at all. Violates verifiability MKoltnow 04:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per concenrns experessed on talk, this seems like a non-notable family. Most of the article consists of copies of info about Polish history and nobility - referenced, but not related to the family. Next, four members of the family are described, only the first one has any notability claims. The family might have had one notable member and the name been mentioned in a historical chronicle or two, but that doesn't make them notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not another vote, but meant to amplify a point. Konieczny seems to be getting the word "lackluster" confused with the word "notable". Not everything notable is required to be heroic. Jarosław Radwan Żądło Dąbrowski was demonstrably heroic -- a reference to his family (Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family) in the context of a wider Radwan gens/clan is useful in understanding his social milieu and origins. 71.106.22.218 21:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. David Eppstein 00:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expired prod, de-prodded by Kurykh with edit summary de-prod, might be worthwhile, except might need references. The problem is that I don't think this is standard terminology at all. If references exist, we can discuss them (it's still possible, even likely, that the terminology is a nonce term for one or two references, in which case I would still favor deletion). --Trovatore 03:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 05:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patent vanispamcruftisement with questionable notability. MER-C 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This biographical article does not contain any reliable primary/secondary sources to verify it's content as required by WP:BIO. Originally tagged per CSD A7, but more information was added which arguably constitutes a claim of notability. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another hoax created by this user. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rainbow (1986 TV Series), appears to be made of text taken from Spider (TV series) (a genuine series). Masaruemoto 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as ballocks. Resurgent insurgent 04:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another hoax created by this user. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Did You Know A Storyman, appears to be made of text taken from Spider (TV series) (a genuine series). Masaruemoto 02:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Nik Love-Gittins? Vyv Hope-Scott? A running time of 5 minutes? Tim Q. Wells 04:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was bold redirect to Raging Abe Simpson and His Grumbling Grandson in "The Curse of the Flying Hellfish". Sr13 18:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An article created for a character from The Simpsons that appears in a single episode, and is not notable in the story of the series, or episode. A suggestion has been made to move this page to List of one time characters in the Simpsons, however I don't think the character is even notable for that article. MrHate 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student film; Googling "Alternate Endings" + "Greg Townsend" gives no significant independent sources. Masaruemoto 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 22:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on a concept that seemingly has no real sources to confirm it besides that, it is completely unsourced, full of disputable statements, let's simply say that it's primarly composed of Original Research without any source to back it up. As a member of WikiProject Puerto Rico I dislike doing this to a page involving my people but I can't in good consiense ignore all the issues on it. -凶 01:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This character does not exist in the Pirates of the Caribbean. Since there is no fourth film, and the grammar is atrocious...fake. Sukecchi 02:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod on this lone unreferenced article. Diff Prod rationale This long time unreferenced article appears to be an abandoned project, what would be sister articles 1985_NASL_season and 1983_NASL_season are both red links. It fails WP:V and has little hope becoming encyclopedic If there were other articles in the series they would/should be in Category:North American Soccer League but there are none there. While the topic would be notable, the complete text of the article is unreferenced and subject to removal, no one including the prod contester is motivated to reference it, I propose the article be deleted, as opposed to striped and left as a stub, as it will have to be completely rewritten from references if anyone ever does decide to "to fill in the missing years" Jeepday (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come. Chealer 01:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable political blog (the 68th most popular political blog on the internet!). SkipSmith 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
probable vanity page of non-notable lawyer Calliopejen1 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
87 kilobytes of indiscriminate information; just a list of song intros played in a particular round of a game show. Put it in a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Masaruemoto 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is a tendentious and unencyclopedic POV on the Arab-Israeli conflict, an explosive subject for sure, but not a war in the usual sense of the word, and is not a religious conflict (of course the conflict has some religious overtones, but Judaism and Islam have a long and complex history together - the current title is a classic case of throwing the proverbial baby away with the bathwater ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Humas Sapiens argument is with the political accuracy of the term Jewish-Muslim War. Sapien writes "not a war in the usual sense of the word, and is not a religious conflict (of course the conflict has some religious overtones, but Judaism and Islam have a long and complex history together." Sapiens statement itself supports the separate political meaning of the term.
Jewish Muslim war definately has meaning as a political statement whether one agrees with the statement or not. To delete this phrase is to delete it's powerful political meaning, certainly a gross violation of NPV.
As far as the phrase's significance, to devote two small paragraphs for a phrase used in a speech by the leading opposition leader of the largest and most powerful Mulsim countries in the world would seem fair.Live Free or Die 00:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday, I nominated List of songs whose title does not appear in the lyrics for deletion and am nominating this article for the same reason. This song is a list of... article, and like similar pages, should be deleted. However, there is always the chance of it being kept. Astrale01talkcontribs 00:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#DIR of loosely associated topics. A nickname for a street, a nickname for a group of streets, a nickname for a city, a name of a town, etc. No connection other than they all happen to contain the word "mile". Masaruemoto 00:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as having no chance of being kept. Sr13 05:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Disney ever made a film called Sleepy Princess. This seems to be a hoax. Edit: On second thought, the original author may have meant to edit Sleeping Beauty (1959 film), although some of the information would be incorrect. --Ixfd64 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Definitely asserts notablilty. Sr13 05:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was nominated for speedy deletion per A7, non-notability. I believe that notability was asserted sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion. I'm moving this to AFD instead. Procedural listing, no opinion for the moment, but I'm inclined to !vote keep, since the medals and awards imply notability, and Skogstad is included in the List of World War II air aces. AecisBrievenbus 00:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 (no assertion of notability); discussion closed early. WaltonAssistance! 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
seems of limited interest to me. I would like to know what others think. Postcard Cathy 00:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second discussion was originally at this page, but I moved it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandrake of Oxford (2nd nomination).--Chaser - T 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The nomination was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. This closure is procedural and makes no judgement on the notability of the article; it may be renominated without prejudice by a user in good standing. MastCell Talk 15:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company clearly does not meet notability criteria, is not 'encyclopedic' and seems to be based on commercial-minded exposure/advertising. SKRINE2 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Footnotes
^ a b Morgan, Mogg. Mandrake of Oxford: Who We Are
^ Evans, Dave. Occult E-books meets Mogg Morgan of Mandrake
^ Morgan, Mogg. About me
^ Jan Fries Reviews
^ UWE Bristol: The Journal for the Academic Study of Magic (JSM)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing an incomplete nomination. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 00:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable term, not referenced, and barely enough content to escape CSD A1/A3. A PROD would be moot since the creator opposed a CSD, and would likely oppose a PROD as well, so I'm taking this to AFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant single-source promotion of a consulting group, which usurped the term "Saint Index" and now heavily promotes itself wherever possible. `'юзырь:mikka 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising of nonnotable politician. `'юзырь:mikka 15:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no assertion of notability, and not verifiable. It also appears to be entirely original research. I cannot see any reason why this particular police vehicle is notable. SunStar Net talk 20:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this is a CV of a science researcher for TV programmes. I'm sure he's good at it - and deserves the credit. But encyclopedic? -Docg 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[34]](/en/Image:Prince_George_BC-flag.png){kind=link}
![[35]](/en/Image:Us-mokss.gif){kind=link}
![[36]](/en/Image:AlbanyNY.gif){kind=link}
![[37]](/en/Image:Us-ma-bo.png){kind=link}
![[38]](/en/Image:JerseyCityFlag.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](/en/Image:ProvidenceRI_flag.png){kind=link}