< February 28 | March 2 > |
---|
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
Not notable enough for inclusion. If the school is notable and has an entry, the library could be mentioned there. The warnings about Wikipedia's content are out of place. Tt 225 16:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notibility is questionable. Shall we keep? BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 01:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Shyam (T/C) 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jared Yates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hardly a notable person at all, finishing 24th in a small TV show, no one special or well heard of. Already been a redirect as being a non-notable contestant. Retiono Virginian 20:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know there isn't a rule like Wikipedia is not Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, but there really should be when it comes to articles like this. It smacks of WP:OR, is unsourced and serves no encyclopedic purpose. Hemlock Martinis 00:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was I'm going to stick my neck out here and call it a Speedy Keep.. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a perfect example for those articles, wich should rather be deleted, than filled up with tons of templates, wich will obviously never reach their goals. Be realistic. As a hungarian, really funny to read this article, so maybe this should be moved to the bad jokes section, or something like that. External links almost does not match with content, wich is...aah... Critics would be longer than the article itself. This is what is below poor quality. Bartók Béla should deserve much longer sentence, than speak. Contain is a mess, artilce itself is a mess. Delete or totally rewrite, starting from a stub. --Vince hey, yo! :-) 00:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to 2005 civil unrest in France. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:40Z
This article is POV propoganda nonsense that talks about the same riots as what is correctly called the French_riots which already has an entry in wikipedia. This article tries to make riots something to do with Islamic theology and the false claim that the cause of the riots is because the Quran commands hatred of jews and non-Muslims, coveniently missing the fact that all the credible well known newspaper sources he abuses in the article actually do not mention ramadhan as a motivation or the Quran, but talk of alienation, discrimination, and abuse of youth who are descendents of Arab and African immigrants See French Riots. The sources are either not reliable, or they do not draw the same conclusions as this artice Aaliyah Stevens 00:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as spam (again). Salting this time. Awyong J. M. Salleh 02:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contested prod. Article Dsdi already speedily deleted three times. Article does not assert notability of the subject, is more a general treatise on drop shipping and reads like an advertisement. Katr67 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How is it that the DOBA entry qualifies as a valid article, when DSDI's does not??? It seems that there is a great degree of subjective preference regarding inclusion into Wikipedia. Most readers will benefit from the content mentioned within DSDI, whereas the entry for doba contains no substantive value (and certainly does not qualify for notable inclusion). Please advise as to the level of fairness in this case. Thank you! --Corrinderz 01:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source: macRAE's Blue Blook Entry is also listed within Thomas Register, the most comprehensive reference for manufacturers and distributors --Corrinderz 01:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the reference for [http://www.thomasnet.com/profile.html?cov=NA&which=comp&what=dsdi&searchpos=1&cid=20103123&navsec=results Thomas Register' --Corrinderz 01:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick FYI to all: removed less relevant sources and provided more noteworthy ones. Hopefully, this will help with the process! THX --Corrinderz 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Please advise as to whether modified refs qualify article as notable...THX --Corrinderz 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Modified some promotional reference to DSDI the organization within article. Hopefully, this will suffice. --Corrinderz 01:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Anabaptist. Veinor (talk to me) 14:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable organization, which is a violation of WP:ORG. Hemlock Martinis 00:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another user removed the speedy delete tag, but this biography makes no assertion of notability. PC78 00:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(comments placed here by TimLong have been moved one paragraph down. Bm gub 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Incoherent, no scientific content. It may be possible to write a WP-level article about photon substructure, but this isn't even a stub in that direction. Bm gub 00:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Non-notable crackpot theory; reference is to single web page consisting of about 100 lines of text and two diagrams. No refereed journal articles; no published journal articles; no online articles of any sort (the web page invites you to "order the academic manuscript" for $2.95+S&H). Still delete. ( The mainstream theory of the photon, quantum electrodynamics, accounts for pair production and annihilation perfectly well, and has passed every experimental test.) Bm gub 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a deterministic representation but is in line with QED rather than QCD.
The result was delete. Grandmasterka 23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another article about a non-notable student sketch group. I have had trouble finding reference to the group outside the upenn.edu domain. The group calls itself the first all-female sketch group, but they also suggest they are the only all-female sketch group, so that shows the level of knowledge they have about those claims. Should be merged into University of Pennsylvania. Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Dennis Green. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:41Z
Article is extremely unsourced - There's only one source, which is only a recap; while the speech was rather notable in the Chicago, it may not be very familiar in other places. Even today, not many people actually remember that speech, in contrast to Jim Mora's ’Playoffs??" rant, which appeared in a Coors Beer Commercial. Additionally, there’s no proof to back up the speech was actually called, “They are who we thought they were”, as many other Chicagoans call it the “Crown their Ass” rant. The Speech is already mentioned in the 2006 Chicago Bears article - However, the NFL Lore entry committee, dubbed the game to be mundane, and did not consider worthy of mention in that article. ShadowJester07 ►Talk 01:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to 30 Rock. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:42Z
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient evidence of notability. I marked it for speedy delete at first, then substituted with a prod, as I wasn't sure about the notability. The author deleted the prod, so I submitted it to AfD. --Strangerer (Talk) 01:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. Bucketsofg 02:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic and not really important article. editors POV, deleting others edits,and references dont have proof of arguments Askbeth 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, and prevent recreation until further notice Lets ignore the fact that right now all this page is is a messed up incomplete template. Saw IV hasn't even come out yet. We don't know the plot about it yet or who will be in it or whatever. Yet people are starting to make articles about the fifth movie?! This fails WP:Crystal for one thing. For all we know, Saw IV could bomb (God forbid) and they wouldn't make it. The same thing happened with Saw IV's article in that people kept on starting up topics so it had to be deleted and prevented from recreation. Seeing as people are going to constantly add Saw V I request that it also be blocked until Saw IV has long been out Saw V has already gone into production. CyberGhostface 01:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep and merge content here from Salients, re-entrants and pockets. This is going on DYK. -- ALoan (Talk)
The stub has no place on Wiki, as "pockets of resistance" is not a term. Santabarba 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Tolkien family. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:16Z
Procedural AfD; was a deleted prod, now contested. [12]. Undeleted the article to allow for AfD.-- Fang Aili talk 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FrozenPurpleCube 03:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While storage costs in the aggregate are a concern, as regards to individual pages it's of almost zero consequence. Furthermore, the benefit of a redirect is very high, instead of a search result, it automatically moves the person doing the looking to an appropriate place. FrozenPurpleCube 19:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted at 18:37, 1 March 2007 by Jeffrey O. Gustafson, following speedy deletion tagging. Don't mind me, just doing the paperwork. -- saberwyn 07:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a crystal ball. worthawholebean talkcontribs 02:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:43Z
Listcruft per WP:LIST. Wikipedia is not a product catalogue; and the notes section reads like advertising. Awyong J. M. Salleh 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:43Z
tagged as possibly lacking notability for just under a month, nothing available in terms of independant verification or attention from reputable sources. seems like a web-based organisation, in which case fails WP:WEB (or WP:ORG if it is otherwise). in any case, nothing to suggest the organisation is even remotely notable. hence, Delete. ITAQALLAH 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Admittedly, this is a close one, but Black Falcon and Crunch have good points. The article has seen a couple more references added since the start of the AfD, and having a building named after him, although not explicitly mentioned in WP:BIO, is a sign of enduring notability. Grandmasterka 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable university professor. Google pulls only 1100 hits. Some are are Wikipedia mirrors, and a few of the early hits are unrelated to the subject. Contested prod, AfD, Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:WEB and is simply a puff piece about their site. KelleyCook 03:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable - notability not sourced Rothko65 03:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Dunlop Manufacturing Bubba hotep 15:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Rationale was No reliable sources to establish notability. None availible via google. Does not meet requirements of WP:N or WP:CORP. Parent company is on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dunlop Manufacturing. Eluchil404 03:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability Rothko65 03:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:44Z
Non notable restaurant magician who has marketed a few non notable tricks. Article is full of POV and was tagged in January for not being notable. The only references are spam-links to pages where people can buy this guy's various tricks. Saikokira 03:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Concerns of nominator not addressed, and two of the keep arguments are juvenile personal attacks. --Coredesat 03:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Does not claim or demonstrate notability per WP:WEB; no sources. RJASE1 Talk 03:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus and WP:SNOW. Article has shown improvement. Nomination withdrawn PeaceNT 08:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a quasi-joke or nonsense page on a non-notable, though demonstrably existant, high school. -Toptomcat 04:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATION WITHDRAWN. Noroton's excellent cleanup work has rendered the article much better. -Toptomcat 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as an nn-bio.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Not notable. 14 hits on Google for "Mitchell Handler", none for this person. 0 hits for "The Newsbreak Times". Recreated 5 times after being speedied. Prod removed by author. Onorem 04:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --Coredesat 03:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chandra Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The result was Keep per consensus. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 11:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, I looked at the article to try and find an answer. I noticed that it asserted more notability than did the Sledd article, but at the same time there were no reliable sources cited. The article states that "[t]he Back Dorm Boys received mainstream media attention in the United States through The Ellen DeGeneres Show" but provides no further information, and this Google search yields little. Another claim, that the pair were signed by Motorola, is similarly difficult to confirm with reliable sources and a marginal assertion of notability anyway. The answer to the original question is "They don't rate a Wikipedia article either." Delete. N Shar (talk • contribs) 04:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]Then tell me what makes these youtubers so special. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_Dorm_Boys Why do they rate a wikipedia article, but not William Sledd? I demand an answer. James Allen Starkloff 75.89.17.161 23:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Weak Keep Needs a lot of cleaning up, but a large amount of notability (much as it makes me shiver to count Youtube etc) EliminatorJR Talk 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this article gets deleted, I'll cut my hair and put on red lipstick to make the most anti-wikipedia video ever. DrZarkloff151.213.162.165 19:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to PlayStation Network. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:09Z
Speedily deleted as spam but was restored on review and is now here for full discussion. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. (To closing admin: Note redirect at PLAYSTATION® Store). ~ trialsanderrors 04:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(this was mistakingly put in the discussion page so i copied and pasted it here) DanB91 00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The triviality of the sources provided means that the initial concerns haven't been addressed. --Coredesat 22:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this article because it appeared to fail WP:BIO and WP:N in general, the prod was removed by a single purpose account Special:Contributions/Schick and some attempt made to show notability. No references supporting the notability are provided. The article seems to fail WP:V and has other non-encyclopedic issues. I leave it to the community to decide. Jeepday 04:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as admitted hoax. Dragons flight 00:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Primary author is a known sockpuppet, confirmed by checkuser. Article appears to be a hoax. Google searches are unable to identify meaningful evidence of a "persian panda" (though there is a blogger using that name), and the article itself provides no sources. Dragons flight 04:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:07Z
These three articles are all chronologies of the entire "Buffyverse" (the universe of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and an inherently crufty term). However, all of them appear to be original research - they are all completely unsourced, and read like a fansite. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and Wikipedia is not a free web host or a fan site. I would be open to transwikiing this if there is a Buffy Wikia that could take these articles, but these are not encyclopedia articles.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is not notable per WP:NN, and sources provided are either not in English, cannot be verified, or are simple search engine listings. It is difficult to tell whether this person is truly notable, or whether the article is simply created by a fan, colleague or employee of Demir Karaca for promotional purposes. The text tends to imply the latter. I will add that this is not a rock-solid nomination -- if editors other than the original author could provide some additional proof of the subject's notability, I'd be inclined to change my mind. Realkyhick 05:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to The Transformers: The Movie. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:03Z
An article about a single throwaway line from a movie. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:02, 1 March 2007
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:46Z
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I cannot see any future for this page to expand into an encyclopedia article. The word "weirdo" is already included at Wiktionary. ~CS 06:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Religion in Romania. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:48Z
The article contains very little useful content, and the content that exists does not meet NPOV. More importantly, I fail to see what the purpose of this article is: what exactly does it mean by "Romania missionaries"? Ronline ✉ 06:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by Tawker. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 07:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List is not particularly useful, and is the only list for NHL players regarding race (ie. there are no lists for black NHL players). Also, many of these are not verified, and are "Asian" judged by looks or surnames (the articles themselves don't give sources or even indications of race).
A similar deletion request was posted the other day, for a category for Asian NHL players (see here). -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 06:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:01Z
No reasonable notion of notability. Only attempt to establish notability is a list of tours with two bands who do not have wikipedia pages themselves (presumably also non-notable acts). Top 4 google responces are myspace page, wikipedia entry, and 2 flicker accounts. Tomb Ride My Talk 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, no good sources that I found, and I believe already recreated after being speedy deleted. - Denny 07:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
VMacisBack 07:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]The problem is that I keep trying to update the page with more credible sources, yet while I'm editing the page with more credible sources, the Wikipedia officials keep deleting it. I fail to see how allowing this page to exist in its draft states is detrimental to the overall credibility of Wikipedia. I have listed in the talk pages several times that the organization is continuing to work on making the article more reliable. Moreover, if the article as as inconsequential as the editors insinuate, then it is unlikely that the article will be seriously referenced until the article is complete. The McElroy Gang organization firmly believes that Wikipedia is an amazing and innovative breakthrough in the way knowledge is shared and as of right now, the organization also believes that this editing and drafting process is fulfilling the purpose of Wikipedia by facilitating an environment for the members of the organization to share information that can later be referenced to the public. That being said, I would like to ask the Wikipedia organizations officials to please bear with us during this drafting process.
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a band; no assertion of notability. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 07:58Z
Keep They're a very nottible band and I have seen them play good band.Somethinghadtodie 16:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so basically what you're saying is if a band doesn't have a .com, .org, .net...ect site they're not a notable band. so, if a band doesn't have a website behond a myspace and purevolume that automatically makes them not notable?? THAT IS BULLSHIT.Scubster 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Tommy and Oscar. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 11:00Z
Questionable Notability Rothko65 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by Proto. SYSS Mouse 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless page. The editor give the rationale that they are as important as Kenny but at least Kenny is a character. The aliens are just an easter egg. This seems to just be a way to link to the two sites and to display numerous pictures with no fair use rationales. The way this article seems to be going, the user is going to add more pictures until the user shows every single alien shown. Sure there is a way to make this a good article but it is hardly notable and frankly little more than cruft. Gdo01 08:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Bunk bed. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:49Z
This article is almost entirely the work of a manufacturer of these beds, and the images are uploaded by her from her website. It reads like an infomercial. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY FROM AUTHOR: Actually, the two beds pictured are from different manufacturers, and there is no way for somebody to click over to any particular retail site based on this listing. Due to that, I think your fears that this is an infomercial designed to bring the author traffic are unwarranted. I have received zero traffic from wikipedia, nor do I expect to.
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Filmfare Best Film Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Director Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Actor Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Actress Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Supporting Actor Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Villain Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Comedian Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Music Director Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Lyricist Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Choreography Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Cinematographer Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Male Playback Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Best Female Playback Award (Telugu) - Filmfare Award for Best Director (Kannada) - Filmfare Award for Best Actor (Kannada)
Contested prod (the article got deleted and was recreated). Filmfare Awards South has a list of similar lists, some were deleted and some weren't. Weak Delete per lack of sources. -- lucasbfr talk 12:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep The way to dispute a Prod is simply to remove the tag from the article (and preferably to add sources etc as you do so), not to cart the article into an AfD situation. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another user, User:Jreferee, proposed that this article should be deleted according to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion guideline, bacause the person supposedly "does not meet Wikipedia:Notability". I disagree strongly. This is a member of the Académie française. Every member of the French Academy is notable; that is so obvious that I would never have thought it would need to be stated. I can't imagine why somebody would claim otherwise.
Looking at the contributions of User:Jreferee, it turns out that the same user has also added "proposed deletion" tags to a large number of other biographies of people who appear to meet any reasonable interpretation of the term "notability", including a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Poetry (Yusef Komunyakaa), and several winners of Olympic medals (Yves Mankel, Yuriy Krymarenko, Yuriy Melnichenko and others).
It appears to me that User:Jreferee has simply tagged articles with titles beginning with the letter Y more or less at random. Some of these are not great articles, perhaps, but it does not seem reasonable to me to use "notability" as an excuse to delete articles which are simply incomplete or undeveloped. Pharamond 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 03:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as lacking independent sources to demonstrate notability. De-prodded as "useful". None of the links cited in the article are independent and reliable all are to the company or sellers. A google search reveals nothing else. Even if cited, I don't think a mere list of notable users shows that a particular product is notable. Eluchil404 09:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Child safety seat. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:50Z
Prod contested without explanation or improvement. A User Guide on the law and use of child seats in New Zealand. The final line of 'This article was produced by New Zealand Child Restraints – www.childrestraints.co.nz & many more links on site.' implies spam. Nuttah68 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:59Z
nn youth conference. Lacks sources and fails WP:N. This, and other articles, were tagged for speedy deletion, but the tags were removed--without explanation--by an IP editor. janejellyroll 09:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Legion of Frontiersmen. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:51Z
Non-notable. An in house medal given by an obscure private organization for attending meetings. Name suggests it's from the government, but it's not. Bobanny 09:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Buildings at the University of Kentucky. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:57Z
Prod contested without a reason being given or any improvements. A university residence with no notability claimed or sources provided. Nuttah68 09:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Daniel Bryant 06:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unmaintainable article and original research Delete Steve (Slf67) talk 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:52Z
Non-notable person; no news sources found about him. Also nominating:
Veinor (talk to me) 02:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Dunkin' Donuts. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:53Z
This page has been nominated for Deletion by anonymous contributor 76.179.203.138 without further explanation. --Tikiwont 16:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Croxley 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was delete. The keep arguments do not address the fact that this article has no assertion of notability, which would technically make it a speedy deletion candidate. --Coredesat 22:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to nominate this article for deletion. I was one of the members of this band and the person who created it was not in the band. It's my feeling he only created it to promote himself as "producer," which I've already deleted. The previous arguments for keeping the article online are laughable at best. True, we did receive a number of 3rd party reviews and a spot on the CMJ Charts for a couple of weeks, the importance of the band is trivial to anyone outside the band's inner circle, which did not include the aforementioned "producer." Most of the good stuff we recorded was right before we broke up as a 4 piece, something this article doesn't even mention. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evertonpalmer (talk • contribs) 2007/02/28 21:21:35
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:53Z
The article is a masked commercial advertising promoting sales of the author's book Santabarba 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends merchandise. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:54Z
Non-notable. One-line article that reads like an advert. Croxley 02:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:55Z
Non-Notable Neologism. Delete FaAfA (yap) 10:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:56Z
Such a minister doesnot exsit. See http://india.gov.in/govt/cabinet.php Gigu 10:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 03:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously proposed for deletion with a second from another editor, article then was proposed for deletion in August without clear consensus. notability and references tags were placed in December and no notability claims have been added since then. Recommend deletion based on lack of notability. Warfieldian 10:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:58Z
Hoax. Deprodded. Weregerbil 10:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 22:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page consists entirely of advertisement, company is not notable Rahzel 20:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Majorly (o rly?) 17:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - maybe I'm missing something but an award given by an "association" of 13 members doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Unable to find anything indicating that this is considered to be any sort of honor, let alone a major one. No sources found for which the award is the primary subject. When it is mentioned it's part of a laundry list of other similarly minor awards that studios mention in press releases and on the back of DVD boxes. Otto4711 20:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Veinor (talk to me) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company. Link spam within the article itself, only edits of the author were to this article or to other articles in an attempt to link to this particular one. The article has held the notability tag for days, and not been touched. Delete, unless notability can be established. J Milburn 22:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been notified of the request for deletion tag. I have added some of the articles in America that reference the company's products in major American newspapers and magazines. I hope this clears any of your concerns for notability. Thank you.
I know employees of this company personally. I know that they have some great products and they have many customers. They were featured in last Sunday's Boston Globe. Please read up on the american press this company has.
24.218.204.89 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quick quote from the WP:CORP article: "...smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Also: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the source of which is both:
* independent of the company, corporation, organization or group itself, or of the product's or service's manufacturer or vendor, and * reliable.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations..." In addition to being at the same location as Lotus 123 and Anderson Consulting first began - clearly the articles provided in the page do meet this criterion.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Schempp
The result was keep. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Coredesat 22:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no content, dicdef Rifleman 82 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article clearly does not meet the criteria for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If improvement is made and it meets one of the criteria, it could be saved I suppose. - Tim1965 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Quarl AlfPhotoman 14:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:00Z
I tagged this article with Template:Prod with the reason "No sources, no assertion of notability, Altaie is described with the weird term "conceptual mathematician", no publications in Mathematical Reviews." An IP editor removed the tag, so I'm bringing the article here.
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsalan Ali below for a discussion on a related article which was created and de-prod-ed by the same editor. Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:00Z
I tagged this article with Template:Prod with the reason "No sources, the claim of discovering the theory of relativity before Einstein is outrageous, almost no other content." An IP editor removed the tag, so I'm bringing the article here.
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Altaie above for a discussion on a related article which was created and de-prod-ed by the same editor. Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability is not established. FisherQueen (Talk) 12:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously autobiographical article, possibly violating WP:SPAM (though not as blatantly so as most), and person's notability is uncertain (there are 800-odd GHits for the name, but mostly to sites selling products). ~Matticus TC 13:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, patent nonsense, WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed proposed deletion. Seems to be covered by what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT), mainly it seems to be original invention/original research due to the lack of attribution (WP:A) by supporting material. blue520 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Martinp23 23:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article was for some time member of a cover band. Most important feat of this band were two nominations for the San Diego Music Awards for Cover band of the Year. After leaving the band, Ediger released two solo albums, but no information about the notability of these albums is provided. The name "Grayson Ediger" gets only four Google hits, none related to this particular person. The subject seems to be just another well-meaning amateur guitar player, nothing that sets him apart from others. I say we delete this for lack of notability. AecisBrievenbus 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Coredesat 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A "suprefanicon" game without references that seems to be merely a mod/hack/whatever of a game. No indication that it is bought/downloaded/played or in any way significant, much less notable Utgard Loki 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, especially given that there's practically nothing left. No prejudice against writing a proper article from scratch. --Coredesat 22:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page reads as general nonsense and a personal attack. Shimaspawn 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website per WP:WEB, no sources. Contested prod. RJASE1 Talk 14:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems just to be repeating information from the company website, and I can't find any coverage of this in any type of reliable source. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Withdraw nomination per below. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 18:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:01Z
Boils down to "fictional characters that are not very nice to other characters". Definition of who is or is not a bully is not objectively definable. Original research, not a meaningful grouping, and trivia. >Radiant< 14:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn procedurally pending the outcome of the active AFD - this may or may not be revisited following its closure. --Coredesat 00:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this for pretty much the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffyverse chronology. It appears to be original research and fansite material ("this list is one interpretation...certain productions have not been accepted or rejected among fans"), and is completely unsourced. Most of articles it links are also unsourced and possibly also original research, as the only sources most of them use are IMDB pages or reviews that do not contain any of the information on them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a publisher of original thought. As before, a transwiki to a Buffy fan wiki (perhaps on Wikia?) might be a good idea. Coredesat 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Nomination procedurally withdrawn, see below. --Coredesat 23:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Veinor (talk to me) 04:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN War wizard90 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:54Z
Not notable. Mocko13 15:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy kept. The article says he's Jason the Red Power Ranger!—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notabile TV Character? Beginskaj 15:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:02Z
There is no information in ths article Clerks. 15:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject company does not appear to meet WP:CORP; I originally tagged this as a speedy, but this was contested by the primary author so I thought an AfD would be a better option. My opinion is Delete.--Isotope23 15:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi I disagree to the matter, the text was written in neutral style according to wiki's requirements and it does not contain any advert hints but just brief information about the company. thanx Nevalex 16:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC) nevalex—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nevalex (talk • contribs).[reply]
Itransition Company participates in the international IT exhibit CeBIT'2007 http://www.cebit.de/ held at Hannover, Germany. This will be the fourth time our company showcases its services at this major trade fair in the IT world. Nevalex 16:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also Itransition Software was mentioned in top 10 Development Companies, that took part in The 2007 Global Outsourcing. This event was highlighted by Fortune Magazine. The recommendations and notifications were sent by Jag Dalal Chairman, The 2007 Global Outsourcing Judges’ Panel and Managing Director, Thought Leadership, IAOP... Nevalex 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please also consider our contributions to Wiki as an article on custom software development and nearsourcing I aslo plan to add some useful information to offshore software development and IT outsoursing themes which will be quite of interested for Wiki's readers and people involved. Nevalex 16:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nearsourcing - is the concept, that was worked out by the company and it is company's property. There is no need to use any sources for brining out a new concept as the company has wide experience in the outsourcing and software development field and enough data to make its own conclusions - I think it is fair enough.
One of Wiki's concepts - is to bring knowledge to everyone who needs it... Why not share our knowledge with other people? You stated right... that you were not aware of this term - so here is our contribution to the community. Regards Nevalex 17:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat that again - the concept is brought within the company based on its experience.... Our company has its own data bank where it keeps all data, innovations, conclusions - you may call it Itransition's Wiki - we base on our own sources Nevalex 17:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I got it.... Please let me have one day to adapt the Itransition page to the WP's.... Nevalex 19:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and maybe split some state lists into "List of shopping malls in (state)" articles. All malls with articles have been merged into List of shopping malls in the United States. "Northwest" is not good criteria for a list - countries, states, cities, and other whole political divisions should be used instead. --Vossanova o< 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Internet radio station per WP:WEB. No references or sources. Contested prod. RJASE1 Talk 16:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was move to Arthur Leopold Busch and keep. No real need to remove the redirect. --Coredesat 22:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a hoax; only one googlehit, and they're a school student. Whoops; apparently I made a bad typo in my search. Neutral now. Veinor (talk to me) 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carabinieri 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO Not a notable person. DavidCBryant 15:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Veinor (talk to me) 03:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod - basically just a blogger who got fired from a campaign for blogging. Sourced basically only to the blogs (I have since removed all embarassing information about living people sourced unreliably) Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable website per WP:WEB, no references or sources. Previous AfD debates were plagued by canvassing and sockpuppetry, maybe things have subsided enough for a real discussion. RJASE1 Talk 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, based on the group it describes, violates WP:NN and WP:NEO. Just a hodge-podge. Maybe in five years time it will become better known in the Jewish world, and worthy of an article. Judging by the one or two links on the page it's basically associated with the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty). IZAK 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:53Z
Despite the fact that I created this article myself, since I have become more involved with AfD debates, I have come to realise that this article doesn't meet WP:MUSIC in so far as there are no independent on-line references to this band (other than one note at Cross Rhythms saying that the album is not available) and although I am certain there was press coverage since none of it is on-line it is possible that this article breaches WP:NOR as well. A1octopus 16:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Golem. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:04Z
This article appears to be about a custom-made map that people play in StarCraft. Suggesting a delete and redirect to Golem. Dvandersluis 16:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement. Concerns on notability, sourcing, and spam that were raised in the first AfD were never addressed. RJASE1 Talk 16:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:07Z
This person edits a newsletter about stick insects. Not even a scholarly journal, but a newsletter. Hardly a noted academic, I'm afraid. Thus seems no more notable then anybody else who edits a newsletter in a minority subject. Necrothesp 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:06Z
Local tennis club. Sproughton Tennis Club raised a national champion. This club does not even have that claim to fame. -- RHaworth 17:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:07Z
Another non-notable editor of a minority interest newsletter about stick insects. Necrothesp 17:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:07Z
I'm not biased against stick insects, really I'm not, but editors of newsletters about them would have to have some pretty serious academic credentials before getting an article on Wikipedia. Necrothesp 17:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:52Z
Non-notable band; 'played numerous gigs around the London area' is horribly ambiguous and doesn't even prove notability. Veinor (talk to me) 17:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete
Non-notable biography, most likely autobiographical vanity. Contains a bunch of original research, no other reliable sources. RJASE1 Talk 17:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Removing conspiracy theory material leaves nothing that could be seen as notability, and no other sources were provided. --Coredesat 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article only created to POV push conspiracy theory about 9/11. Only barely notable BBC reporter. MONGO 18:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD A7, obviously not notable group. (The Defenders of Sovereignty has been a Star Wars gaming clan that was started on January 9, 2001. It is undoubtedly one of the longest lasting star wars clans.) - Smerdis of Tlön 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible non notable clan, reads like a how to, no sources, clear conflict of interest Daniel J. Leivick 18:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Farewell speech. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 10:48Z
A dictionary definition in essence, but then with substantial (and substantially incorrect) material that is inherently POV. WP is not Wiktionary. Utgard Loki 18:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism, creator removed prod. FisherQueen (Talk) 19:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also think about the mechanics of the sound – it is one that is easy to repeat at the top of your voice and will carry well on the wind/air, quite important in the shooting environment.
Comment - There is noting to say it is official as in documentation due to the phrase being introduced after the start of the year academic year (Sept 06 – Sept 07). The books/club material is distributed in sept each year to new members so it should go in for next year. As the phrase was widely used at the nationals many other clubs are aware of it as well as shooting elements around the local area of Plymouth and club member home towns. It tends to be used by younger members of the sport that know of it. As for the invented comment it is now quite clear that we are not the first to use it (so invented can be change to implemented) but…… as products can have patents obtained for different use or slight modification we are the first to use it in a safety sense or to signify an event. 04/03/2007 @ 13:30
The result was Speedy deleted by Rama's Arrow, copyvio. BryanG(talk) 03:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unreadable textdump, seems copyvio, + author has been spamming around on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs)
Courtesy blanking
The result was no consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Afd header added only for article nomination by Walter Görlitz below. Tikiwont 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a textbook. All non-textbook content is redundant with Java keywords and Java syntax Selket Talk 21:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator, overwhelming consensus to keep the article. -- Longhair\talk 12:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4.5 minutes of fame. Does this qualify as notable? I'm not sure, but I think it falls short. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable MLs End33 21:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 11:11Z
Not appropriate topic for a list; explanation given on talk page protesting attempted PROD reveals intent is original research (ie, there's some kind of trend in how hockey players die, etc). ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus to delete. NYT reference helps a lot. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:56Z
Unencylopedic, POV. Delete this and all associated images. RainingmySoul 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient evidence of notability. In addition, the page seems to be a direct copy and paste from DeParis Redinger, another page of questionable notability. The author removed the prod, so I submitted it to AfD. Strangerer (Talk) 22:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:53Z
Insufficient evidence of notability. In addition, the page seems to be a direct copy and paste from DeParis Redinger, another page of questionable notability. The author removed the prod, so I submitted it to AfD. Strangerer (Talk) 22:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Appears to be non-encyclopedic listcruft. Leuko 22:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to Kendal. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:52Z
Buisness school of dubious notability, also tends to read more like an advertisment rather than an encyclopedic article. PC78 22:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:51Z
Reads like an advertisment, and I'm not 100% sure but he doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for musicians. PC78 22:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Coredesat 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The creator asserts on the talk page that there is sufficient evidence to show notability. I disagree. FisherQueen (Talk) 22:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:50Z
This article is about an organization that is not significant or well-known and is written like an advertisement. This article is very disorganized and has not been maintained since the cleanup tag is added. Stephenchou0722 22:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, for now, though ideally a new article on Energy drinks and alcohol should be created, and this redirected to it. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:50Z
Not sure if this counts as a notable company/product. Probably not but putting it to an AFD anyways Sasquatch t|c 23:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Internet phenom Kimbo Slice, a streetfighter whose videos are quite notorious. I acknowledge the popularity of these, but there simply is not enough verifiable information about "Kimbo Slice" for a proper biography. I have found exactly five reliable sources that mention Kimbo Slice. These are:
The next four are all Boston Herald pieces centered on Sean Gannon (fighter), a Boston cop who defeated Kimbo Slice (and directly because of this was picked up by the UFC). But these pieces have only trivial mentions of Kimbo Slice:
There are no reliable sources to corroborate Slice's real name, jail time, family, income, training, etc etc. All the descriptions of his videos are original research. The "best" version of this article (mostly verifiable information) is here, and even that has some poorly sourced content based on Gannon's post to Sherdog's message board.
This article survived an earlier AfD here. -SpuriousQ (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://ufcmania.com/2007/01/26/final-thoughts-on-ufc-fight-night-8/ http://ufcmania.com/2007/01/10/former-ufc-fighter-buentello-wants-kimbo-slice-and-cro-cop
UFC Mania is directly connected with the UFC.
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:37Z
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. War wizard90 23:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Billie Joe Armstrong. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:37Z
Armstrong was a minor league baseball player of no particular accomplishment, as well of the father of Green Day lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong. Baseball "andy armstrong" gets 702 Google hits, a number of which aren't about this Andy Armstrong. Maybe redirect to Billie Joe Armstrong. The two sentences that make up this article should be, and are, in that one. Djrobgordon 23:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:35Z
Cable television countdown show - not in any way an official music chart measuring airplay or sales. This show has been on for years so there is no way this could possibly be comprehensive. And even if it was, how is this even notable? It's filled with tons of question marks already. - eo 23:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-07 08:30Z
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; no evidence given that the film is, or will be, notable Veinor (talk to me) 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted by CesarB . —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-05 10:36Z
Non-notable biography per WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, and WP:WEB. Contested prod. RJASE1 Talk 00:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. The nomination has zero basis in Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and even a modicum of research reveals, as pointed out below (and indeed as pointed out in the article), that there is no shortage of sources upon this subject. I also caution 207.62.186.233 (talk · contribs) to refrain from personal attacks against other editors, such as exemplified below, and also to read our policies on Wikipedia not being a soapbox and the Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia is not here to promote the personal viewpoints of its editors. It's an encyclopaedia. If you want to argue a case for your personal views of the merits of this subject, please do so in an appropriate venue, such as an article published in a relevant scholarly journal, not here. Uncle G 01:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]