The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not notable, partially unverifiable, not citing any sources, not NPOV. Tinctorius 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Should be cleaned up to remove original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Unreferenced article about some term, suspected of being original research. I suppose it should be deleted if no sources can be found. W.marsh 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep; article has been expanded. Krimpet (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It reads like nonsense - but I don't think it's speedyable Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 11:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted, copyvio --Steve (Stephen) talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BAND. Cool Bluetalk to me 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a fairly recent book largely of interest to watchers of Australian celebrities. Given its recent publication date and the fact that it doesn't seem likely to be terribly influential or unique, I figure it's probably a prime candidate for AfD. Have at it, then. Haikupoet 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sr13 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More self-serving and promotional than notoriety Shoessss 17:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Kinu t/c 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hits at all on this show from Google or Yahoo. Likely a hoax. Blueboy96 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed an A7 speedy since holes designed by a notable designer is an assertion of notability. However, it is unsourced and lacks the necessary secondary sources to establish notability so I am bringing it here so that editors can take a view on its notability. This is a procedural AfD on which I abstain. TerriersFan 20:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can make if they feel like it. - Bobet 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about apparently cancelled Gizmondo games, created by Nextreme (talk · contribs); originally nominated for speedy deletion. Little to no references (just an outdated link to screenshots at Games Asylum, another broken one to Warthog Texas [I didn't find any mention of the games using Internet archive], with a Youtube demo video in one of the articles). I am nominating the articles for deletion due to notability and verifiability concerns, but making no vote myself; consider it a procedural nomination. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, no consensus to merge, and no consensus to move. Either of the latter two can be purused editorially to try and develop a consensus; however, there wasn't one as a result of this discussion. Cheers, Daniel 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable website. See Wikipedia:Notability for criteria for notability. Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction) for reasons why this website is inappropriate for Wikipedia. New guy 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Article does not establish any noteability of the subject beyond being junior player of the Dublin Wanderers Rugby football team. The creator of the article contested the speedy deletion, with the following argument:
No sources have been provided, the only thing I found through google was a story about the youth teams tour of tolouse, from the Wanderers homepage. In short, it does not appear that this meets WP:NOTE or WP:BIO. Dr bab 16:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge all to Abadia Retuerta. Daniel 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A brand of wine. No real claim to notability as I've never seen a wine that didn't claim at least some awards. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, though am holding off on the Abadia Retuerta corporate article for the moment:
A winery is the sort of business I am inclined to give the benefit of a doubt to. They necessarily have a physical plant, continuity from one year to the next, and tend to generate fairly substantial independent press coverage; I suspect it would be easy to make the main article meet WP:CORP even if it doesn't already. I don't see the need for separate articles on each of its products, though. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Recording studio. Cúchullain t/c 04:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it is promoting a product. My reason for believing this is because the creator's name is "vocalbooth" (I linked to his user talk since he has no userpage) and he has in the past added spam links to a website of a similar name ([8]). If "vocal booths" are more than some product that the creator is advertising then it may be a good idea to add appropriate references to show this. Also note that the creator has been indef blocked for a "promotional name" already. I thought this article could be speedy deleted but apparently not. Funpika 00:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was smite with fire and brimstone. Krimpet (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Fails WP:BIO. No independent reliable sources. Lexis Nexis search shows no articles to verify any of its claims. —Ocatecir Talk 01:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention NPOV problems most places you look. DagnyB 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Clement's credentials have been referenced by receiving ministries all around the United States. His book Secrets of the Prophetic is a biographical sketch in accordance with and supporting the information posted in the article. What else would one be looking for to verify information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.103.219 (talk)
The result was Speedy delete a1, g6, WP:NOR, school essay. NawlinWiki 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a school essay. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hoax, faked poster, all speculation. ThuranX 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created by new editor who tried to rearrange a number of Batman related pages. ThuranX 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was just a redirect see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dark Knight (disambiguation), closer of that AFD will deal with this page as needed. W.marsh 16:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Created by new editor who tried to rearrange a number of Batman related pages. ThuranX 01:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax; none of this is confirmed by other Wikipedia entries (and there are lots of pro wrestling entries), and none of this can be confirmed by a Google search, which is unusual for an allegedly well-known professional wrestler. fbb_fan 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non notable person C5mjohn 02:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. The songs on this list are unrelated to each other except for the coincidence of having been played in an episode of a TV show. There are no sources attesting to the significance of the songs either in the context of the show or in the real world. Otto4711 02:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making this point clear in so-many words at the top of the page would make the page seem meaningful within an enclyclopedic context. References should be made to online articles which make mention of the special status of OC music and sustansiate the above claims(there will be plenty). 81.179.112.177 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC) SAMDANZIG 17:37 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Consensus is to keep. Sources added. Article has been improved.diff PeaceNT 08:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN Army Officer. Part of the Arbuthnot walled garden. EliminatorJR Talk 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I think this is interesting Kittybrewster uses as a ref: Mrs P S-M Arbuthnot "Memories of the Arbuthnots" (1920). George Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Yet the same publishers in the same year published "Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire" by Ada Jane Evelyn Arbuthnot [13]
Odd that two Arbuthnot wives should simultaneously publish works so similar - very odd! There is the possible explanation that Kittybrewster forgot to add the last part of the title - but would those qualifying Scottish counties include the Irish branch? Then the name Ada Jane could have been Mrs Peter Arbuthnot - but why change the author;s name. Too many questions? Giano 16:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep with the added references. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another NN military person from the walled garden. EliminatorJR Talk 02:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory of loosely-associated topics. These songs have nothing in common beyond the coincidence of being used as background music in an episode of a TV show. Otto4711 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. EliminatorJR Talk 02:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable? Not that I can see. EliminatorJR Talk 02:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This band fails the notability criteria for WP:MUSIC. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 03:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Not one Google hit for "Siegfried van Blem" or "Theory of cumulative political campaign with downright percolation", etc. No one by that name at University College Dublin or Princeton University. ... discospinster talk 02:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete as hoax. I'm trying to remember my trip to Amsterdam--not entirely sure, but I think "vanblem" means something dirty in Dutch. Qworty 09:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to assert notability, and article subject fails notability under WP:MUSIC anyway. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable comic. Another user contested speedy on the grounds that independent publication constitutes notability. However, google searching revealed the mentioned newspaper Concrete be a student publication at a college. I do not believe student publications constitute any proof of notability. Someguy1221 03:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who draws the arbitrary line between which publications are notable, and which ones aren't? If the publication is independent, that should fulfill the criteria for notability, regardless of personal opinion as to whether the quality of the publication is 'good' or 'bad' or how discriminately they accept certain additions. The criteria for notability should not depend on the subjective opinions of certain administrators. It is not sufficient to simply "believe" the publication unnotable, and to do so is to ladel out subjective opinion as god-given law. It fits the clause in the notability criteria demanding at least one independent secondary source (while multiple sources are preferable, they are not necessarily demanded, though they can be found on numerous profile pages in web databases such as 'stumbleupon', which should constitue an "independent secondary source"). Please leave personal opinion aside, and demonstrate the comic, or the publication's lack of notability objectively. After all, it seems to follow that if a university newspaper such as The Martlet is 'notable' enough to warrant a wiki entry, then any other university paper is 'notable' enough as an independent secondary source, and therefore the criteria for notability has been fulfilled.
Hectorlowe 16:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Concrete considered neither reliable nor notable as a source (due to its being a university paper,) when another university paper, The Martlet, has its own wikipedia entry, which presupposes some level of reliability and notability for university papers?
Hectorlowe 18:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "documentary comedy" does not appear to be recognized as a genre by reliable sources. This is original research. Otto4711 03:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an original research. Most of the facts that cited as an examples of NIH term (NIH is a term used to describe) have way more complex roots, like program cost overruns(Harrier), unfree licenses(KDE), poor economic performance(China was not developing it own weapons -that was 30 years ago). Whole military section I believe ridiculous. TestPilot 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Unmanageably long and indiscriminate list. This article is functionally equivalent to Category:Music venues in the United States. notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 05:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. Vsion 05:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fan site Corpx 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, it's just another message board that has no impact outside its core group of users. Joyous! | Talk 10:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable martial arts instructor, seems like article was created to put him in negative light. In addition, there's been an OTRS complaint by the subject of this article. Yonatan talk 05:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, CSD A7 (notability not asserted). Krimpet (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sophomoric porn-hoax. Looks like it's been PRODed a few times, so here we go. Masamage ♫ 06:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though not entirely as silly as the title indicates this article provides no proof of notability as per WP:N and WP:RS. It is mostly about exploding sheep in a group of video games and has then been expanded with references to various unrelated uses of the words "exploding sheep". This survived an AfD 3 years ago which is available here. back then it was more specific. MartinDK 06:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as spam. Is obviously promotional in tone, but not properly spam, and has been brought back after WP:PROD so probably needs a fuller debate. Hard to say whether the group is truly significant or not. Clear conflict of interest from creating user, User:TeachersCount, which accounts for the advertorial tone. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a de facto recreation of previously deleted material. See List of most valuable comic books, the just-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books, and the frivolous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_10#List_of_most_valuable_comic_books.
The deleted list of "most valuable comic books" was deleted largely for being based on horrendous original research. The author, who is also the author of the article being considered here, simply took a table from an article on super-hero first appearances, copy/pasted it, and claimed they were the "most valuable" comic books. This was patently absurd, of course, as there was no basis for the assertion, and an overwhelming consensus opted for the deletion of the article. But reading the AfD, there were other concerns based just on subject matter. Editors raised concerns that such a list could ever hope to be valid, as per one comment, for instance: "You can certainly source how much some individual comics (were reported to have) sold for, but can you put them together in a list and say they're definitively the most valuable comic books? I don't really think so... I've never seen a real comic book publication even try to do that." My interpretation of the prior AfD is that, even beyond the terrible foundation and nonsensical basis of the prior article, there were just too many potential issues about any type of list, most importantly the roadblocks in building even a remotely accurate list. So, based on the prior AfD, Delete.
Lets say you disagree with the application of the previous AfD and want to examine the merits of this article, what little of it there is. Perfectly fair. So lets see what this "List of most expensive comics" is based on... Lets look at the first sentence of the article: "This is a list of the ten most expensive sold comic books, according to listings at Esquire Ccomics in order of most to least." Who are Esquire Comics, you ask. Good question. Tooling around the site, I see they are an online high-end comics retailer run by one guy out of Maryland. So why are they special, do they provide a definitive resource on comic values? The answers are that they aren't and they don't. There are thousands of online comic book retailers, both high-end and bargain basement, tens of thousands of brick-and-mortar comic shops and specialty stores, and hundreds of thousands of collectors who sell books at conventions and online in personal stores or on eBay. The secondary comic book market is a multinational multi-million dollar industry - so choosing one unremarkable online retailer as the definitive resource on something as volatile and fluid as comic book values is pure, utter folly. I can already tell you, that right now, there are comics on eBay with higher prices than some of these. This list just plain is not the "most expensive" comics. Period. Delete.
OK, so the editor chose a really, really poor basis for his article. What about the subject in general, you say? Again, the prior AfD provides excellent arguments to the contrary of such an article's potential. In short, how do you gather data, what data do you use, and is such data, even if sourced, reliable and representative of the notoriously fluctuating comics market? There is simply no conceivable way to know what the most expensive comics being sold at every retailer, every convention dealer, every collector conducting private sales, or every eBay auction of X amount is going for. The author of the article is fond of pointing out that there are lists of most expensive pictures and works of art and the like. The difference with individual works of art is the individuality of the pieces. The most likely valuable comic by any likely measure has just 100 copies left in existence. Not much, you may say, but in contrast, there are only three The Pond-Moonlights, only one Portrait of Dr. Gachet... what works for one thing, does not always work for the other. So lets throw out actual realized values and look at potential values. What source do you use? CBG? Wizard? The standard-bearer of the industry, Overstreet? Even Overstreet will tell you that the values listed in their guides are out-of-date rough guesses that are not representative of whats actually going on in the market. And ignoring the obvious and valid issue that WP:NOT a price guide, as noted in the prior AfD, relisting any specific source's prices may violate copyright, a la IMDb. Because of the lack of any logical way of collecting definitive information, and because the nature of the subject is too volatile, again, this should be Deleted.
--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 13:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without improvement. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 07:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that Robertson is "one of the most prominent African American theological figures in the Richmond, Virginia area in the 1950's" (thus avoiding a speedy deletion under A7), but does not even hint in what way Robertson was prominent.
The article was created by User:Robinsonwc as Dr. Benjamin Robertson, moved by User:Discospinster to Benjamin Robertson, moved again by Robinsonwc to Dr.Benjamin William Robertson, Sr.. This deletion discussion concerns all three articles.) Austrian 07:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 15:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without improvement. Non notable wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 08:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page fits in with the 7th species of articles for speedy deletion (due to the fact that the article doesn't even assert the content's importance or significance). Furthermore, regardless of what the article asserts, this article has no significance, and the only place it belongs is in a one-sentence mention on an article about drinking games in general... IF it can be referenced, which it never has been BlackberryLaw 08:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 15:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is a lot of unsourced original research, and our medical articles about the female body cover the subject better. >Radiant< 09:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vinay, you need to be aware that many things NEED to be deleted from Wikipedia. Someone nominating a ton of articles that need to be deleted or at least considered for deletion is doing a great service. Please assume good faith unless you have explicit reason not to do so. Slavlin 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus. PeaceNT 04:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete this page as it is getting subjected to a lot of vandalism..in fact, the whole of wikipedia is getting subjected to vandalism! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dpkmallya (talk • contribs).
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable software, see WP:SOFTWARE -- Y not? 09:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it non-notable? This software has several notable features for file managers.
Such as Plugins support and others. I added the parts about features and about lacks to the article recently. What else can I change?
--AlexT12 09:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete or merge all. Suggest further discussion about merging some (on their talk pages), as there seems to be some support for that. W.marsh 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages with the same arguments as above:
The WP:NOT argument applies to the above three as well, though they are all less of an instruction manual and more of a game guide.
-- User:Krator (t c) 09:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - the organization fails WP:CORP and, per nom, there is no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. Plain and simple. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Non notable independent wrestling promotion, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources, fails WP:CORP. One Night In Hackney303 09:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
previously db-ed, the article is unreferenced, and a quick search on the Internet doesn't bring any result on the creator's name doesn't bring any result, the sword name doesn't bring anything significant either. So I'm inclined to think this is an hoax and bringing it to AfD -- lucasbfr talk 09:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook (in more ways than one) original research. Contested prod. MER-C 10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally non-notable person, the creator of the page is its subject and she has repeatedly removed maintenance tags that flag her possible conflict of interest and non-notability. The article is a vanity page - consisting of speculation, personal trivia and unverifiable claims. Only sources are the subjects blogs and myspace page. BigDaddy1981 9 May 2007
Delete.
Keep Agreed that the article was first written in contravention of WP:COI. Agreed that the article as it is now requires one heck of clean-up. Don't agree, however, that the subject of the page fails WP:BIO as a few click around Google shows that she does have a fair bit of fame. Also noted that this nomination is not signed and that the nominator has made no other contributions, so faith of nomination is in question. A1octopus 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Following a more thorough search however, I cannot find enough non trivial sources to back up the article. Given that and every other reason already stated, my vote is changed. Apologies for questioning faith of nomination. A1octopus 12:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Userfy and delete. Cúchullain t/c 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating article Caste system in south India for non-notability/redundancy; most of this material that is not covered in Indian caste system seems to be not notable; also the article is completely uncited and unwikified - I was starting to work on it but I think it's not worth keeping. CredoFromStart 14:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. The character only appeared in a handful of episodes. When I created the article I thought she would be more permanent. Kogsquinge 01:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Have there been other substantial edits? If not, yout could tag it via Template:Db-author. --Tikiwont 13:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. Sources added. diff PeaceNT 05:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I cannot understand why this page is up for deletion? She has an Offical Fansite at www.lucyverasamy.com and is one of the Sky Weather presenters. Please can someone explain what copyright this entry has infringed upon?
--Visionaryone 12:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I wholeheartedly agree with the above, why is this being nominated for deletion? She is a well recognised weather presenter on Sky News. And can I also point out the following page which lists Sky weather forecasters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sky_News_weather_forecasters
If the individuals listed there are acceptable, why isn't Verasamy's page not acceptable?
And if notability is an issue, can I also point out there are plenty of news articles which quote her as a source, both when she worked for the PA Weather Centre and more recently as a Sky News weather forecaster.
--Lonewolf 1183 19:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Cúchullain t/c 04:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recent AfD consensus was to redirect; the article has unfortunately been resuscitated. Original rationale for deletion still applies: a textbook case of synthesis as proscribed in Unpublished synthesis of published material. The small amount of factual material in the article is duplicated in other articles. Article serves no purpose other than synthesis and original research. The term is a neologism that does not appear in the scientific literature: a Google Scholar search for the phrase "solar system warming" returns zero (0) hits.
The result was Keep after revision and sourcing. Cúchullain t/c 02:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The user page of the article's creator was started in a very unusual way and the creator has been involved in apparent spamming. The speedy deletion tag has been removed from the page twice by people connected with the creator, who like those people appears to have problems allowing speedy deletion tags to stay in place until seen by an administrator. Some or all of WP:COI self-promotion, autiobiography, close relationships and campaigning may apply. There are no sources and no citations of published work.ERTalk 10:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Speedy Delete Here are a few links to publications from Eileen Crimmins. That should confirm her notabiliy. There are plenty more links if you wish to see more evidence.
[34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41][42], [43]. --Cyrus Andiron [reply]
12:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
That being said, the entire page is a copyvio from this page [44]. I've nominated for Speedy Deletion. The subject is notable, but the page will need to be recreated without plagarizing. --Cyrus Andiron 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non notable MMORPG, discussed on some game fora, but seems to have failed to make any verifiable impact. No reliable secondary sources, no indication that it meets WP:NOTE (or any of its derivative guidelines). Fram 11:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased, probably cancelled game without any claims to notability. No previews, articles in major magazines or newspapers, ... Fram 11:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 02:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Online MUD in pre-alpha stage and without any claims to notability. No reviews, no awards, no company apparently (just a group of nicknamed developers), ... if it becomes notable after being published, it may warrant an article, but there is no reason to have one now. Fram 11:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walled garden, part of which was previously deleted. As far as I can see this is a non-notable author with some non-notable books containing some non-notable ideas. Haukur 11:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MMORPG in development by a non notable company. Game has review on some wiki's (like the IGN link), but no reviews, awards, or other indications of notability by reliable independent sources. May or may not become notable later, but isn't notable now, and thus shouldn't have an article. Fram 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was SPEEDY DELETE a7. Herostratus 14:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable webcomic, does not meet the demands of WP:WEB (as indicated by a specified google search), providing no sources for attribution. Murghdisc. 11:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MMORPG announced in 1999 and currently approaching testing! Well, an unreleased game by a non notable company (have they done anything besides Atriarch since?) and without any verifiable claims to notability. Fram 11:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted. Page blanked by creator. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page is almost completly Spam and no sources listed St.daniel Talk 11:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the sources are listed is it alright? vicadin
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable comic, subject of article of claims with nothing to attribute to any sources. Specified google search indicates considerable obscurity. Murghdisc. 12:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, this is Ben Pearson. I'm one of the co-creators of Swift and Steele. We just recently had our comic recognized by the copyright office of the United States of America, and I think that if the government officially recognizes our work, then that alone is grounds enough for our Wikipedia page to stay functional. Granted, that "laser guarded facility" comment was a little ridiculous, so I've gotten rid of it. Now everything on this page is completely legitimate. And just because there aren't multiple Google hits when you type in the name of our comic book, I don't think that should mean that our page needs to be deleted. Thanks a lot for your consideration. Hopefully we can see eye to eye on this matter. Ben Pearson74.234.13.72 01:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another "in popular culture" article. The way to deal with bloated popular culture sections in articles is to take an axe to them, not to split them out into "articles" consisting solely of cruft. Numerous precedents, let this one join its fellows in the bitbucket. Guy (Help!) 12:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per G11. -- The Anome 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable radio show. Only 9 Google hits for "BiPolar Express"+Albynoh and 3 for "BiPolar Express"+WAIH. Also not written encyclopedically. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 12:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Redirect still possible as an editorial decision. W.marsh 15:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced and non-notable neologism Chunky Rice 12:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only cite given to show notability is a geocities page. Does this pass the WP:BIO criteria? The Anome 12:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE with a rediret to Mansoura University. Herostratus 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be an auto translation and almost completely unsalvagable content. Potentially copyvio of webpage in another language. Very few updates since added in Feb 2007 and no inbound wikilinks. Bren talk 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination for 83.31.207.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). No opinion yet. MER-C 13:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as copyright violation. Same text found here. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement, boilerplate text, NPOV. JJL 13:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Needs improvement, but AfD isn't cleanup.Cúchullain t/c 04:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This book does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. What's more, the page basically functions as a way to unduly promote the opinions of a fringe astronomer, Halton Arp. Whatever content is useful can be kept at his biographical article. ScienceApologist 13:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local politician. Achievements do not rise to the level expected of WP:BIO. No verifiable or reliable sources. Virtually no sources whatsoever. Personal sites do not count. DarkAudit 14:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. I will redirect for now, editors of these articles can merge additional content W.marsh 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor recurring character who doesn't really deserve a place separate from Buffyverse Slayer timeline#Amanda as she is deceased, culturally insignificant (unlike say, Buffy or Willow) and will likely not appear in future episodes/comics as she has been killed off. ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC) ~ZytheTalk to me! 14:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only ethnic list of gangs that I can see. Why is this one ethnicity separated out for a list? Subject to continual vandalism, and almost impossible to keep correct and accurate. Also, what makes a gang a "Korean American" gang anyway? 100% Korean American membership? 50%? 25%? Even the article, when listing NY gangs, says they tend to be of mixed ethnicity. So, to me, the definition of what would go on this page is mushy. And are any of these listed gangs even really noteworthy enough for the project in the first place. If they are not noteworthy enough for the project, why bother keeping a list of them? Overall, appears to me to be far more trouble than it's worth. TexasAndroid 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 14:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
disputed PROD for website, no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really do have to say that the point about the new position is not a job advert - the page is simply making the point that another traineeship is now in place in Cambridge. Perhaps the article could be more general but I still maintain that people in the UK considering librarianship as a career would find this an invaluable resource. The traineeships are a fantastic way of launching a career in the information sector and also give potential librarians a taste of the profession before they commit to a postgraduate course. The positions in themselves are highly courted. This article is intended to provide some more detail about the traineeships and what they fully involve. 131.111.130.67 11:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is not an advert or job listing. If the article is to be deleted, please delete it on relevant grounds (eg too specific to Cambridge.) Traineeships are advertised through relevant sources and this article is intended to provide information not act as a recruitment service. Please note the difference 131.111.130.215 11:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE feel free to recreate as a redirect -Docg 14:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every high school warrants an article. This one lacks notability as nothing newsworthy has happened there and no notable alumni have come from there. Clerks. 14:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Daniel 08:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted through AfD. DRV overturned, claiming that too few commenters had the opportunity to see the new evidence brought forth at the AfD. Please consult both the original AfD and the DRV before commenting. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article tries to build a case for WP:CORP notability out of a claim that the company has received some kind of distinction because its affiliates are apparently obliged by their contract not to use adware. This is not enough to achieve notability IMO. The links reference sites like "affiliatefairplay.com", "revenuetoday.com", "affiliatesummit.com", and "wayneporter.com", perhaps a personal site. None of these links seem to be substantially independent of the web marketing industry, or reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to point to guidelines, but statements were made that refers to those guidelines as if they would strongly support the deletion due to not meeting notability and because the reliability of the cited sources was questioned. I will cite important passages of the guidelines for WP:CORP and WP:RS to show what they actually say to the subject.
Quote from WP:CORP "notability (corporations and organizations)":
“ | Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".
|
” |
WP:RS "reliable sources":
“ | Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.
The reliability of a source depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. A world-renowned mathematician may not be a reliable source on topics of biology. In general, a topic should use the most reliable sources available to its editors. |
” |
Major general press is not covering the subject very well, with exception of the negative examples of people that use unethical methods to make a quick buck. I am referring to the coverage of AdWare and Spam (email and search engines). If the subject makes it to the main press, is it virtually never mentioned individually, but under the general umbrella of internet marketing. It is widely overshadowed by the larger types of internet marketing which include paid search, email marketing and display advertising (the banners and pop-ups/pop-unders on large websites). The sources which I provided are not the best, because I am unable to find any publication relevant to this discussion in any of the nationwide newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post or similar. However, the sources of the available publications are reliable sources. Those sources are real companies with editorial staff, address, phone number and email address. They do also not fall under the category of unreliable sources like tabloid press. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other Affiliate Marketing and Ad Serving companies are inlcuded, so I see no validity in arguing this - other than a personal distaste for people who make money or serve ads. This is not just a legitimate business, but a seven year old business of note amongst everyone in the affiliate marketing community. Someone above mentions the AffStat survey (listed at MarketingSherpa and written about at ClickZ) where ShareASale is highlighted and has been there since the survey's inception. Is it notable? Ask ten people attending AffiliateSummit and see if you can find more than one or two who have not heard of them.
Look at their Google results. They get an extended listing with subsection links. Not many sites get that. Search the news for them and you get the most recent article from Practical ECommerce quoting a recommendation from Shawn Collins of the top five providers "I'd suggest Commission Junction [CJ.com], LinkShare [Linkshare.com], Performics [Performics.com], Kolimbo [Kolimbo.com] and Share a Sale [Shareasale.com]"
Look at their 2,000 plus merchants and you will find thousands of legitimate (mostly) small businesses who are using this service to expand their sales and help real people make money from sending them these sales. BTW, they do have some larger/well known merchants, such as Rockler Woodworking (I see their brick and mortar stores all over), Chinese Laundry, Old Time Candy Company and Sportif.
Other than being in the industry a long time, I have no special involvement with ShareASale. I used to give three hour courses on how to select and set up Affiliate Programs, and if I were to do that today, ShareASale would be one of the top companies listed. If I had a person asking me where to set up an affiliate program and they did not have a six figure budget, ShareASale would be the number one choice and I'm not sure if there would be a number two. That's how notable and good they are.Bcwaller 18:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable as per WP:BAND.
The rest of the criteria are unequivocal "no"s. Closenplay 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about the band's profile on Budweiser's True Music show? It's broadcasted on HDnet, which is only available in HD broadcast, but they were a major feature during that hour program.
Also, the Pixies tribute CD will feature more well-known bands, including They Might Be Giants, OK Go, and Mogwai (all of which have Wiki entries). It seems that if a band were worth inclusion on a prominent CD meant as a tribute to a prominent artist such as the Pixies, which also features other prominent musicians, they'd have proven well-known enough themselves to earn a Wiki entry.Morningtheftnyc 18:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, if the band does not satisfy the requirements, then you should perhaps examine some of the other NYC indie rock band inclusions, as many of Morning Theft's peers are listed and have not been deleted. Morningtheftnyc 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if it helps the case at all, but i found an interview the lead singer did on the VH-1 Best Week Ever blog. Last time I checked, VH-1 was a big media outlet. I've added that link to the "Sources" area. Morningtheftnyc 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable primary school in the outer southeastern suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. No independent sources establishing notability. Orderinchaos 15:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 15:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod; No evidence of notability, tagged as unsourced since October 2006, delete per WP:BIO. Burntsauce 16:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article about this Cuban brutal death metal band does claim some sort of notability but there are no references to any non-trivial third-party coverage and the article's creator seems to be a former member of the band. Pascal.Tesson 16:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC) move to Locations in Hogwarts and rewrite into a more encyclopedic, less speculative tone. Krimpet (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete and total Original Research by fandom - it even says so in the second intro sentence! "contributors have deduced the location of every room" Putting your research off-site then coming to Wikipedia is not "published" Doin' it for the shorties 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Veinor (talk to me) 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without any improvement to the article. Fails WP:BIO without evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. Burntsauce 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia & Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) McA 16:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect and merge. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. It's a sandwich. To be more precise, it's a line of sandwiches apparently offered in Burger Kings in New Zealand. The article is a list of the different sandwiches and their ingredients. About a month ago (when the page had been dormant for several months), I redirected the page to Burger King#Products, but the redirect was reverted eight days later by the page's creator, who has since added to the page. The page links to several other pages about Burger King sandwiches (most created by the same user who created this one), but those all at least seem to have some additional content besides just describing the sandwich itself, so I'm only nominating this one. There are no references indicating this is more notable than any other fast food sandwich. Propaniac 16:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some reasons for keeping:
Jerem43 19:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was transwiki to Wikisource. Daniel 08:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is representative for all lists at Category:Gray's Anatomy-related lists.
Systematic organisation of the available resources of commons: should be done there, perhaps by subdividing commons:Category:Gray's Anatomy plates. And thousands of external links to a site with popup ads aren't needed at all.
Pjacobi 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Ladonia (micronation) and merge Nimis (artwork) into it. Cúchullain t/c 02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an art project by artist Lars Vilks, spread over 2 articles. Lars Vilks is a redlinked artist; he has no other incoming links. The first article, Nimis (artwork) about a sculpture, offers up no assertions of notability and no reliable sources whatsoever. It has 1 incoming link (excluding a link from Ladonia and a dab link from Nimis) and I think it can be safely deleted as non-notable.
The second article, Ladonia (micronation) (previous nomination), about the place where the scultpure was made has several problems too:
I recommend deletion or, if the sources can be found and if he's notable, moving and refactoring both into an article on Lars Vilks. --kingboyk 17:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:CORP guidelines. More info on the talk page of the article in question Russavia 17:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article unreferenced, and sounds like blatant OR and POV. There *is* a company called "Dynacell" out there (dynacellcorp.com), but I can't see anything resembling a Duracell knock-off, so it's probably a different company with the same name. I suspect that *this* "Dynacell" is just a ten-a-penny pseudo-brand used by a generic Far East manufacturer. However, that I am having to guess this much in the absence of sources is indication enough that this article should be deleted. Fourohfour 17:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Nothing has been put forth indicating that the book itself is notable, though the subject may be. Cúchullain t/c 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book; article also has a misleading title, as the book does not appear to have been published in English. Suggest that this article be merged into Jasenovac concentration camp and deleted, unless evidence of notability is provided. —Psychonaut 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duja, thanks for the reference to the guidelines on the notability of academic works, which are to be treated differently to general and fictional works. I find the following advice: "Try not to apply guidelines reflexively; as if they are written in stone. All deletion discussions should be approached on a case-by-case basis, with an eye toward the peculiar circumstances presented. Keep in mind that subjects are not notable because they meet a particular standard, rather things are notable because of their impact, influence, fame, etc., and the standards are an attempt to catalogue that which notable subjects share so that we can recognize that notability." [51] I suggest that the case advanced that this book is an academic work which is a unique and respected contribution in a significant subject area enables it to satisfy the guidelines for notability. --Opbeith 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that the book is cited with its title given in both Bosnian and English as a significant reference in an English-language review of the subject at http://www.bosnjaci.net/egt.php?id=1169&polje=. A Cincinnatti Enquirer story by Cameron McWhirter at Enquirer.com includes an interview with Nihad Halilbegovic seeking his views on the outcome of the Dayton Agreement as "the Bosnian government's secretary for invalids around Sarajevo" (a translation suggesting ministerial responsibilities - can a Bosnian speaker please investigate and confirm?), suggesting that he is a figure of sufficient substance and authority to distinguish his writings from the general run of the mill at Wikizon.com - http://www.enquirer.com/bosnia/stories/bosnia0421.html --Opbeith 11:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 14:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion of non-notable web page that purports to track cash-based awards offered for various challenges, no independent citations provided. Spam. Ronnotel 17:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline. Requests for additional information have gone unanswered. Thebisch 17:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by me as WP:CSD#G11 (spam). —dgiestc 22:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam bio of author of one book, see also related afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Udston Pit Disaster Hamilton 28th May 1887 Tim! 17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn Tim! 07:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a valid topic for an article, but this is just spam for the book of Wilma bolton, see related AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilma bolton. Tim! 17:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy'n'paste (and not a great one at that) from AC power (or perhaps some external website that got it from that article). I don't think this needs its own article, nor is this splitoff linked from that parent article. The idea is viable, but this article would need some (maybe a lot) of context to be a stand-alone page, may as well leave it in the context of its parent. DMacks 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 14:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; no useful text (e.g. contributors unnamed, arguments not given) William M. Connolley 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 14:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure that this is notable - besides, there are no sources Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This may not be notable enough to warrant it's own article. Purgatory Fubar Converse or Snafu 19:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Trebor 11:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. It has previously been tagged as blatant advertising, but it isn't completely promotional or non-notable. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Ball article has over 40 links to it, 95% of which are aerospace industry related links. Ball has and still is producting satellites for NASA and DOD. The first 3 paragraphs are not written well for Wikipedia. Of the many contributors to this article, one of them should step forward for the re-write...maybe the person who mark this article for deletion could take the first cut, too. The impact of deleting this article would leave those links as unreferenced/not cited properly/stubbed articles.
I will look at other aerospace contractor articles and use some of the styles of writing found in them and start there. Respectfully submitted,LanceBarber 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Thank you" to User:Fleminra for jumping in a doing the first cut. LanceBarber 05:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as WP:CSD#A1 (short article / no context). —dgiestc 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice story, but I don't think Wikipedia is about collecting random stories without background information. -- Prince Kassad 19:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable counseling program, no independent sources. NawlinWiki 20:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hits on Yahoo or Google, unless I missed something. A likely hoax. Blueboy96 20:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trebor 11:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable or non-existent piece of Friends trivia. No references or google hits. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g12, copyright violation (thanks, Blueboy!). NawlinWiki 04:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur youth soccer club in Florida. Successful club, but our precedent is that nonprofessional clubs aren't considered notable. NawlinWiki 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trebor 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
doesn't seem notable... she's translated some books and published chapbooks. i can't find third-party sources from a quick google search. Calliopejen1 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trebor 11:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit actress, if her bio on IMDB is any indication. Not notable. Blueboy96 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notabality or sources. Article also has very little content.--St.daniel Talk 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Majorly (hot!) 00:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hits for this businessman or his supposed company on Google. Even without this to consider, notability is shaky at best. Blueboy96 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. -Docg 14:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an encyclopaedia article; it is an essay, and a highly speculative, POV, and unsourced essay at that. More than half of the essay is about bootblacks, i.e. boys who shine (or shined) men's shoes. The last half or third of the essay is full of speculation about the place of the "bootblack" in homosexual leather culture, and how this might have originated. This was previously speedied, and I tagged it for speedy again, but was overruled by an administrator. So, I bring it here. Charles 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 04:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No hits at all on Yahoo--seems to be a hoax. Blueboy96 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources? The book listed is a real book, though how important it is, I don't know. But there are no English language sources for this supposed vampire, and the ones in Spanish and French look tentative. Corvus cornix 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources # Tali Carreto, "Dossier Vampirismo" Revista Freek, Cádiz (20 de febrer 2006)
--Estruch 06:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many strange. This user only speak about this question in all the wikis. Many strange. This user only speak about this question in all the wikis. — 62.57.217.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:32, May 15, 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
I don't find such article as a deletable item. It worth to be included as a stub but as a legend it should and must be present in Wiki. Just my 2 cents. --Otermin 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual chapter of Alpha Phi Omega, no reason for having own wikipedia entry for a non-notable chapter Justinm1978 19:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 16:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable plastic surgeon. Having a lawsuit filed against you does not make you notable. PRODded, PROD removed by original author. Corvus cornix 23:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Notability not established. Cúchullain t/c 02:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability is even attempted to be established. Page created as spam for a product frequently removed from nonograms article as spammer and continuously put back by owner of the website in question. Person who created this article also placed it back in the article against consensus and has no edit history other than doing so, clear sockpuppet of previous spammer, User:Jsimlo (not user name's similarity to name of website URL, and he has admitted it's his software he is promoting. DreamGuy 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Majorly (talk · contribs) with summary This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense (CSD G1). This non-admin closure was brought to you by →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Silly neologism with 0 ghits. Trying to coin a term, are we? Coren 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable fanzine. Anytime your printing method is photocopying you know you're not exactly Time Magazine. The article creator does have a detailed defense on the article talk page. Herostratus 00:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia is a cookbook. Not to mention the article is poorly written. TV-VCR watch 05:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 09:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actor that won a regional award (the Golden Apple) for Best Supporting Actor in a Musical. All the article is unsourced. -- lucasbfr talk 10:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source link for the theatre indicates that this supporting actor "award" is nothing more than a local, amateur, community theatre group honoring it's own performers every year. It is not an accomplishment in professional theatre, as the article purports. And the other "awards" are for high school competition. Nothing here meets Wikipedia standards of notability.--208.127.115.247 11:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]