![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using
|
The result was Delete, beneath the massive storm of single-purpose accounts lies zero keep votes. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed twice previously (first nomination, second), and I feel that there were several problems with the previous nominations. There are still no independent, reliable sources for this game. While perhaps every sentence needn't be cited, notability needs to be established. And it has not been here, despite a great deal of concern. It fails every applicable criterion. In previous nominations, some claimed that it met WP:WEB criterion 3, which I see no evidence of. While this much concern should've generated some level of sourcing, this has not happened. The article should be deleted as nonnotable. Eyrian 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom, non-admin closure by me. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, this fails WP:N. It has had a prod removed by an anon user. ~ G1ggy! Reply | Powderfinger! 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, MySpace band, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not referenced by reliable sources, unencylopedic tone, questionable notability. The only existing release mentioned in the article gets 4 Google hits apart from Wikipedia, which all seem self-published (including this BBC page, which "allows for "aspiring bands" to submit their data). Information about the second EP which "is scheduled for full release in March 2007!" can only be found on Wikipedia High on a tree 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball delete. Sr13 21:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very large chunk of WP:OR. Despite having a long edit history, it's also incomprehensible in some places, and sometimes reads like it was auto-translated from another language. A number of sources, but they merely source items that are tangentally referred to. EliminatorJR Talk 23:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One of those tricky ones. A piece of shareware with a few reviews here and there, but no substantive coverage. The article doesn't make any claim of particular notability. Google returns 152 unique hits [1] a lot of which are blogs or mirrors of press releases. Notable or not? EliminatorJR Talk 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 02:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability (according to the article, the band has only recorded two untitled demos), unencylopedic tone, not referenced by reliable sources (the band's web site seems to be defunct btw). High on a tree 00:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Kanabekobaton 00:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod for this beverage. Speedily deleted on 3 May; recreated, then double-prodded on 4 May and contested on 9 May. Delete as non-notable, really awfully-marketed product. — mholland (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently a neologism coined by people infringing on 20th Century Fox copyrights and bitter that they got caught. —tregoweth (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7 (no assertion of notability) and g11 (using Wikipedia to advertise her selfpublished book). NawlinWiki 02:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a talented young girl, but one self-published book is simply not enough for an encyclopedia. See Wikipedia:Notability (people). And the article is lacking sources. High on a tree 01:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Dsmdgold 21:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary fancruft (that is, there's no List of CBS Television works on DVD). Created by The Tramp (talk · contribs) after I removed this same list from the Hanna-Barbera article. It doesn't help that this list is non-comprehensive and missing a significant number of Hanna-Barbera DVDs. FuriousFreddy 01:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is inaccurate and no one seems to be willing to fix it Cronholm144 02:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the resources and I am not sure if it is notable enough even if I could.--Cronholm144 02:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should have talked to Silly rabbit first... He might fix it.--Cronholm144 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete If the assertion is that this entry is inaccurate then it needs to be deleted. Misinformation is worse than none at all. the_undertow talk 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I guess I am... but I don't know how to close a discussion. Anyone who wants to, feel free to do so.--Cronholm144 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~~~
". This is a ground for speedy closure, and then anyone who knows how to can do it. --LambiamTalk 00:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (CSD A3). Krimpet (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written, unattended stub, worse than a dictionary entry Cronholm144 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I almost forgot... this is the entire article "Algebraic algorithms are algorithms for algebraic problems. Or in other words, the term algebraic algorithm refers to the algorithmic approach of algebra."(citation needed)--Cronholm144 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete the article in question, because it just repeats the words "algebra" and "algorithm". -- Gesslein 02:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. I will add the merge suggestion tags so editors of this topic can do the content merge. W.marsh 13:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be little more than a gallery of non-free content with brief explanations of each demo. Beyond the fair-use image gallery, this topic really does not seem notable. I would not even really support a merge into Virtual Boy as there are no independent sources (outside of one video-game fan site) confirming that this (1) existed and was (2) notable even at the time. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is about (or a copy of?) a schedule to some insurance document for which no article occurs; there is no context, and despite requests to add context, the creating editor cannot or will not. Carlossuarez46 02:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. This is the most notable schedule used by Actuaries. People who peruse online discussions about accounting scandals regarding insurance companies will wonder about the "schedule P." If Wikipedia knows what it is, that is a plus for Wikipedia. Perhaps the author should add some history and controvery surrounding the schedule P. (there are both.)
1. Here is the context that I put for this article. I did my best to follow the templete of other wikipedia entries:
[Category:Insurance] [Category:Accounting in the United States] [Category:Actuarial science]
Please clarify if this is not what you meant.
2. You have to start somewhere. I'd like to add more as I have time but if wikipedia is missing an entire category of information you can't put it in context until you make more entries. You can't do that when your fist one is deleted for not being in context. Also this is not a 'tax subform' any person's (stock market analyst) who's job it is to analyze the financial strength of an insurance company knows what this is. Any accountant who works in the insurance industry knows what this is and would benefit from this information. Also as for the 'scope' of wikipedia apparently it's okay to have extremely esoteric topics from the tech industry but it's not okay to have esoteric topics from other industries? Here are some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Token_ring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments
There are 10x the number of people in the US who would need to know what schedule P was for an insurance company than would need to know about a Token ring. Do we a separate wikipedia for insurance professionals? another one for banking professionals? another for gardening enthusiests? another for physicists?
3. addressed above
4. Please try googling before making the assertion that something is a joke. http://www.ambest.com/sales/schedulep/ http://www.naic.org/store_idp_sched_p.htm http://www.casact.org/dare/index.cfm?fuseaction=browse_lev3&lev1=100&lev2=240&categorylist=249
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this list is like a directory. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Also, unencylopediac. I don't believe is an appropriate topic for a list. --Random Say it here! 02:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a restatement of the argument of one book (Malamud, Randy. Reading Zoos: Representations of Animals and Captivity (1998)) that zoos are imperialist. Violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If Mr. Malamud or the book are notable, they might get articles, but not a separate article for the theory. NawlinWiki 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too unbalanced Monkeymox 08:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone tagged it for speedy, but seems like it does have some notability since Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, a famous activist and politician apparently has some association with it now (see McAliskey's article). Procedural listing, no opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book; "The Queen's Prize" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable illustrator. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete/redirect. W.marsh 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book; "Farewell, my Lovely" + "Susie Cornfield" gives 68 Ghits, which are booksellers. Article was created by SkeaterMedia whose only other edits have been starting other articles related to Susie Cornfield and her non-notable books. Crazysuit 02:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G11. Sr13 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
tagged speedy, but I don't think it should be, procedural listing, no opinion. WooyiTalk to me? 03:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No supporting references; only 954 GHits; I can't find any way to establish notability for this person. Mmoyer 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cruft, original research. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. If after the release of the film there are enough reliable sources discussing the Brethren to warrant an article, it can easily be restored. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WjBscribe 12:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional organization set to appear in an upcoming action-adventure film. No assertion of notability, no references, plenty of questionable fair use images. Unnecessary fanservice. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 00:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn. although its great to see independent candidates, does not appear notable. —Gaff ταλκ 03:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, this person has been in the news multiple times, and is currently making a run for office. There are multiple creditable sources for everything mentioned on this page. -LuvataciousSkull 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this is a common term, within the southern region of the United States or elsewhere. Google turns up roughly 1,700 hits for "Dude eggs" [8] the bulk of which are Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary mirrors and a few links to second rate Jackass episodes. Suggestion deletion unless evidence of encyclopedic merit can be provided. RFerreira 04:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No "multiple, non-trivial" secondary sources to speak of on covering this game. THe article links to the home page (not a valid source) and a wiki (hardly reliable). Talk page shows a GameSpy page, but GameSpy themselves did not make the page, and the RPG review is only one site. Prod removed without a reason. hbdragon88 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this for proposed deletion because it's an unsourced orphan biography of a living person. The tag was removed as "vandalism" so here we are. I suggest that unless something verifiable and useful can be said about this person we should delete the article. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N: Does not have mutliple reliable sources independent of the topic itself. Smogon, Nintendo.com forums do not qualify as reliable sources. Last AFD was a unanimous "keep and cleanup." It has since been 15 months without any improvement, and the third-party sources tag was put up there six months ago. hbdragon88 04:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Father of Nation has been tagged for lacking sources, for needing cleanup and for being original research since 2006. It's a long exercise in original research, where a "father of the nation" is chosen for each country. Every single choice is original resarch, just one is sourced. To take but a few examples. Nobody denies the importance of George Washington but I for one have never heard him being called Father of the Nation. The authors of the article have decided that Micheal Collins is the FotN for Ireland, not Eamonn de Valera. No sourced reason is given to suggest why. I'm a Finn myself, and I can guarantee that our "FotN" is never called that, and many other good candidates could be found if such a title existed. I assume we can find the same situation for each country, the article just consists of persons picking their own favourites. One of the more amusing ones, naming former SNP-leader Donald Dewar as the FotN for Scotland. I can see no reason for this article to be left on Wikipedia. Not only is the title Father of the Nation not used in most countries, the choices are original research in each and every case. JdeJ 04:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable neologism we already have article Padonki it is more than enough Alex Bakharev 04:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel 10:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school in Sydney with lists of vice captains and school captains. The book noted in the footer is not in the State Library of NSW catalogue. Orderinchaos 04:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. This has been completely rewritten since I nominated it. Chick Bowen 21:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article, originally, almost two years ago. It was more or less original research at the time. Now it's worse: it's turned into a list of journeymen, which is of course a rather subjective judgment. Of course, an article could be written about the use of the term by sportswriters, but it would have to be sourced (and something more than just a definition), and this isn't it. I say axe it and start over. Chick Bowen 05:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Defunct, inaccurate term only used once in a book from 1961. Google shows one mention that isn't a Wiki mirror. Delete. fethers 05:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete but could still be merged/redirected as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:N Delete Nick Garvey 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn. not a crystal ball. delete —Gaff ταλκ 05:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The university in question has about thirty thousand students and the comic has cult value. Also has small but growing notability outside of the institution in question.
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom. This was speedied as an article "asserting no notability". However, it does assert notability, as this was New Zealand's first science fiction club, and was the founding organisation of New Zealand's annual science fiction awards, the Sir Julius Vogel Awards, and an organisational force involved in the coordination of national conventions. it was also the country's only nationwide fannish organisation for one and a half decades. My own view is a strong keep on that basis, though I have to admit bias as a primary editor of the article and a former member of NASF. Grutness...wha? 06:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unencyclopedic original research vanity article. user makes abusive/attacking edits on other pages as well. —Gaff ταλκ 06:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Software with no evidence of notability. No independent sources, article title gets 62 google hits. Weregerbil 06:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a "how to" manual Richard 06:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 16:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates Hayatabad and has even more POV than the original. Deprodded by creator. Morgan Wick 07:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:N guidelines and no verified sources (google) Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Ideogram 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So is KiSS "The Elder" who the heck has those albums?? Why dont we exclude them items of interest as well from this site. In any rate, it doesnt matter either way, the site is there and thats that, maybe in a uear when it's bigger, we will then revist it sand include it because it's then "worthy", whatever. GmanIV 11:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such animal! This is a neologism and this article violates WP:NEO, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. Sure, Humanistic Judaism exists, but it does NOT have belief in God as one of its tenets! Hence it takes a "leap of imaginary faith" to posit that it can be somehow meshed with Orthodox Judaism to create such a hybrid. IZAK 07:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as A7. Non-admin close. --Seed 2.0 14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is nn bio. The band named does not have a WP page and would not meet WP criteria. delete. —Gaff ταλκ 08:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Merging could still be considered, but some arguments against it were made that should be considered. W.marsh 13:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This term is nto in widespread use, and much of that use is actually not as discussed. The reference link does not support the content. A few reliabel sources discuss it, but usually in editorials as informal usage, not in main content. I don't see a proper scholarly discussion of the term. Main use seems to be bloggers-after-truth, trying to get one over on The Man and failing, representing the results as legal terrorism. It is, needless to say, a grossly POV term. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 18:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to satisfy WP:V. Not a widely-known figure skating position (no relevant GHits[16]), named for an amateur figure skater who herself has only 20 unique GHits[17]. ~Matticus TC 09:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, the Glacier Falls Figure Skating club president, Don Rabbit took the move to the Governing Council and was told to call it the Taryn Position and attribute it to Taryn in all discussions and when teaching the move. There is no other way to name a move, but it is correct to assume that the first to create it and present it should receive credit.
I find it amusing that the move is notable and amazing on Caroline Zhang’s page, but not so for Taryn Horacek.Sk8rmom2all 14:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites no sources, and is simply a list of episodes in a series, providing no additional information Monkeymox 09:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 14:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn vanity created by user of same name as page. Listed for speedy, but user contested. —Gaff ταλκ 09:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete The JPStalk to me 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bogus article. —Gaff ταλκ 09:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate work. Heathy D is an aspiring actor and if you think his "failures" are not work writing about that's not really the issue.
The result was speedy delete - no assertion of notability at all. Kafziel Talk 12:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Generic band vanity. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Contested prod. MER-C 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as A7. --Seed 2.0 15:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band with an unsourced article. No real claim to notability. I appreciate the standard for music are lower than for any other subject but this is not an article about the notable Vanessa Paradis song. MLA 09:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus and some holes in the keep arguments, eg the board is a lobby group with no article not a govt department, and the multiple sources may not actually be non-trivial, since some of them seem to be a directory. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another of the numerous non-notable Arbuthnots. At first reading this person seems notable, but when one analyses the text he is not. The positions he held are not notable. Such phrases as: "He was instrumental in obtaining the chair of Moral Philosophy for his intimate friend, Dr James Beattie" beg the question - so what?. The references are a family history by a member of that family., and two peerages which will list him because he was the father of a baronet. I shall also be nominating his son the equally un-notable George Arbuthnot, 1st of Elderslie. Giano 10:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was tragedy, delete! - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Contested speedy.) This is an article about a Fringe play -- unnotable in itself (Fringe festivals have dozens, if not hundreds, of these shows). It has only yet been produced at the author's college, and offers to independent reviews. I wish these guys luck, but a future performance at a Fringe festival does not notability make. The JPStalk to me 10:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability whatsoever. This belongs like so many of the other Category:Arbuthnot family on a family history site not on Wikipedia. Please note he is not the 1st anything of Elderslie Giano 10:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of this article constitutes undue weight. It also seems like an end-run around NPOV, avoiding the necessary inclusion of the sceptical perspective at electronic voice phenomenon. Only one formally independent source, which does not give it much attention. Google and Factiva do not turn up anything reliable, all mentions appear to be in the blogs and websites of proponents of EVP, a large proportion of whom appear from their sites to be cranks. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Home row. W.marsh 16:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These four letters on the keyboard are not very notable... the article itself is just a list of isolated and speculative trivia about the letters with no cohesion between them. Remy B 12:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neither notable nor verifiable; I can't seem to find any applicable google hits related to "cathol" "brandon wright". Bkkbrad 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
prod'd, prod removed and put back. Therefore, I removed the prod as per rules and took it here Postcard Cathy 17:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was listed in the wrong place. J Milburn 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was created by 66.32.71.1, the author of the website that is the subject of the Jew Watch article. He's also the original author of its article, which he created with the intention of gaining notability for his website. Unfortunately, AFDing that article may be premature, but deleting this redirect is a step in the right direction. -Etafly 22:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Selket Talk 13:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is not very significant other than being an example of the many small pcs in the world, and it is not the worlds smallest pc, the previous model was. In fact, the website states that the previous model was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records as officially the worlds smallest fully functional pc [19] and it also says on the main page that this model is the "World smallest Windows Vista PC",because it is a bit bigger, but improved enough specs to run windows vista,which is less significant .Rodrigue 16:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why has no one uploaded an image yet, even though there are plenty of them on the website.Instead someone on the talk page suggests adding an image even though they can do it themselves.
All that just shows how much people really care about this article.Rodrigue 21:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well perhaps this article should be merged, but the other version is a world record holder so it is notable enough. Rodrigue 22:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This organization or product lacks notability per WP standards Calltech 14:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested by an editor who should realise that wrestling fan sites are not reliable sources. Non notable minor league wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. There's this article but it's impossible for an encyclopedic article to be created from that. Fails WP:BIO, and WP:V due to the lack of reliable sources. One Night In Hackney303 10:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. Prod removed by creator without comment. FisherQueen (Talk) 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --ROASTYTOAST 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
misinformation JMK 11:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC) From the first entry this article gave completely incorrect information. Anyone can check that the Cobas (not Cobas tree) is not a Pachypodium but in the Vitaceae, genus Cyphostemma.[reply]
The article seems to mix up three species, Cyphostemma currorii, which is the Cobas of Namibia-Angola, Pachypodium namaquanum, the Halfmens of RSA-Namibia, and Pachypodium lealii, which is reported to be used for arrow poison, and then not by Van Wyk as far as I can see. Recommend: Delete and start over with correct name. JMK 11:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as unremarkable web content. --Seed 2.0 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN comic website Gareth E Kegg 11:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 18:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
one chapter of a national organization; no assertion of notability delete Cornell Rockey 12:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-worthwhile list of programmes shown on an Israeli satellite channel, none of which are produced by the channel itself. Other than advertising the channel's content, I can't see the point of it. Number 57 12:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (was already deleted with proper capitalisation earlier) Orderinchaos 11:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The text provides no evidence of notability, and a google search of "Yasmine Lewis + Chess" reveals no reliable sources that would confirm notability FisherQueen (Talk) 12:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but article needs improvement. W.marsh 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page about a non-notable blogger; neither his Blogger name (Interdictor) nor his real name pass the Google test. LoomisSimmons 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do not use the word "vanity" in this context. From WP:VFD, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [20], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.". WP has got into trouble about this in the past: look after WP and avoid using that word. DewiMorgan
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nominated by dannybriggs93 but no discussion page created Hotmann 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A poor quality article that cannot reasonably by improved.
It was proposed for deletion in Feb 2006 because "it is impossible to tell what the subject of this article is". The edits since then have only added more tags, instead of improving the article.
The title is wrong. It was probably meant to include the word topology, because it discusses things related to network topology.
The content is essentially a duplicate of building automation#Topology. Although that article also has problems, it is being actively edited. JonH 13:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We really don't need articles on every one-off power that appears in a TV show. There appear to be no independent reliable sources attesting to the existence of this term outside of this single episode, let alone its usage, making this a neologism that should be deleted. Otto4711 13:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Editorial decision. W.marsh 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 13:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect - Editorial decision, but precedent supports redirecting minor characters, I don't feel relisting is needed to determine this. W.marsh 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 14:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 20:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this page get created last week and although I suspected vanity (see the creator's username), I decided to hold off and give the author time to expand the article. So far nothing has happened. I don't think they meet WP:CORP as the only google results I can find for them are listings in various directories. There is also nothing encyclopedic on the page - were we to delete all the material which does not live up to wiki-standards, there would be an empty page. Bachrach44 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Editorial decision, supported by precedent. W.marsh 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary character in upcoming film Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Only present as a plot device. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mistress Ching. DarkAudit 14:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable player. He was never international in senior's team. He played in weak teams of semi-professional leagues and he has never won a trophy. user:KRBN 17:09 14 March, 2005
The basketball comparison is not relevant, as there may be vast differences between the top basketball league in a country and the top football league. said here someone. However here some claimed that WP:BIO by saying Competitors who have played or competed at the highest level in amateur sports means top league of a country so Yaniv Azran since he played in a top league of a country, must be kept. And I said for the same reason Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Stylianou should have been kept as well since it satisfies that criteria. The article was deleted since it was accepted that, playing in top league of Cyprus does not mean notability. For what I understand according to ChrisTheDude, he considers him notable because the level of israeli league is notable. However, WP:BIO clearly says Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming and tennis are considered notable. Since Israel is not fully professional it can not be considered as notable. I ask the same question. Can you prove that the Israeli league is fully professional? User:KRBN 11:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a list of colleges, with the first two items being external links to the colleges' websites. I prodded a couple weeks ago with the reason "Wikipedia is not a repository of links, or a directory"; the prod was removed with the comment that the page would be improved, but it hasn't been edited further and still seems intended to be a list of links and nothing more (or forgotten altogether). The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded as indiscriminate information; prod removed. This is mostly a long list of redlinks; all the blue links seem to be included in Category:Pre-freeway turnpikes in the United States (they make up most of the 21 articles in that category). This doesn't seem notable or useful to me. The article is orphaned. Propaniac 14:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Plenty of articles exist that probably shouldn't. Equally, because articles must wait for someone who is interested in the subject to notice they're missing before they're created, a lot of articles don't exist that probably should.
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notibility req's, improper references 99DBSIMLR 14:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally speedy-deleted as a copyvio of IMDb. DRV overturned, mindful of the rule in Feist v. Rural that the copyright on compilations of public information is minimal. (I'm not sure the first edits of the article satisfied Feist, as they were in a style similar to IMDb, possibly betraying an infringement of the IMDb's "creative" element; the current revision is not similar at all, and does satisfy Feist.) Anyway, the question remains whether the actor meets WP:BIO. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Merging can still be considered as an editorial decision that doesn't require AFD. W.marsh 13:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR; Neologism Limongi 15:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or, just search "BRIMC" on the internet and see what you find: nothing. In other words, this article misinforms the readers of this encyclopedia - leading them to believe that BRIMC is a Goldman Sachs thesis (which it is not) and is a term widely used in international economy and politics (which it is also not), and that alone should be reason enough for deletion. Limongi 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, BRIC may also mean:
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. 99DBSIMLR 15:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Several people seem to want to merge the useful content, so they might go about doing. W.marsh 13:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This man is totally un-notable so much so that even the article informs us "Arbuthnot Road is not named after him.". FGS delete it fast. Incidentally, both references are written by the primary author. Giano 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/rename. W.marsh 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
article could be better incorporated elsewhere Berk2 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No notability offered except being a captain. No achievements, only articles linking to the page are from dab pages, or the 1938 page when he was born. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN, no source. Matthew_hk tc 16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Shining Force II. W.marsh 23:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to gaming wiki as said in template. It can now be found here and here so either merge or delete the article. --Cs california 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the album. This is what we do with most album track articles, and that people here want to delete suggests there's not consensus for keeping them separate articles. W.marsh 13:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst updating the Californication (album) article, I turned a lot of the articles for the individual tracks in it into redirects as they weren't independtly important articles, there were no sources to back up the claims, and there wasn't anything that could be said that wasn't original research. Most of these redirects stuck, but two of them, Right on Time and Savior (song) have been reverted twice. I spoke with User:MiTfan3 about it and he seems to have ignored my comments about policy, etc, and so I believe it would be better if the articles could be decided about by outside parties and just deleted. There is (in my opinion) no reason for them to exist. Kamryn Matika 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating: Savior (song). Kamryn Matika 16:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it wasn't me who reverted the Savior page, but it was who reverted the Right on Time page because there is sufficient enough information mentioned on that page, not mention on the Californication (album) page, to leave it alone. And don't say I've ignored your comments about policy, I left all of the other pages redirected except for Right on Time, like I said, I didn't revert Savior. - MiTfan3
Weak Keep The song is released by Red Hot Chilli Peppers, a long running and famous band. According to the proposed guidelines at WP:MUSIC, it should at least give it a pinche of notability. However, more sources still are needed regarding the band's comments on the song.--Kylohk 10:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete --lightdarkness (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN, youth player Matthew_hk tc 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Jersey Devil 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable as per WP:BIO. Yamla 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to recreate a new article for each single of the album. Shoessss 17:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced. Contributors will not disclose primary sources. Emana 17:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I belive this article should be deleted because it is not important enough to be in wikipedia. I did a google search for it here. The top results were wikiedia's and answers.com. This is saying somthing considering the article is a sentance long. The other top sites contained no direct information on the "current" just vague references. Also the only reference for the article is to a non existent page on a free hosting site. -Icewedge 17:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without any improvement to the article. Fails notability and WP:BIO a no non-trivial third party sources are provided. Burntsauce 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a genealogical article about a family which is not notable in the Wikipedia sense, and many of this sort of article have been deleted recently for exactly the same reason BoxCount | Talk 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isolated article about a CNN item. The content, whether prayer can effectuate healing, is already discussed in depth on prayer, and this article seems to be a content fork. Delete, no grounds for merge. JFW | T@lk 18:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this: and it was removed. This is both cruft, and very trivial. How exactly is a list of mentions/references to these popular characters...helpful? This "popular culture" nonsense needs a lot of cleaning. Why exactly is Wikipedia turning into a mention/appearance guide for just about everything and anything? Exhibit A: Category:Fictional works in popular culture. Exhibit B: Category:In popular culture. Better guidelines need to be made for this, otherwise it's just going to get a lot worse. I know from past experiences with these types of articles: people move a big section from a main article into a new article. While that's not always the case: it still seems to be the case a lot of the time. CONDENSE the section if possible, before just moving it to a new cluttered article. Not everything notable should have a "pop culture" article, which ends up as listcruft, trivia and just clutter. RobJ1981 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without imoprovement. Non notable independent wrestler, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. One Night In Hackney303 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Majorly (talk | meet) 23:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded twice as a non-notable group. Prod was deleted twice by the same editor, with no improvements or attempts to establish notability. BierHerr 18:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. There are (granted, slim) bio notes here and here as well as here. As to the Accelerators disclaimer of reliability cited by [[User:One Night In Hackney, this seems more a pro forma legal disclaimer rather than an actual admission of unreliability; the home page states "...this page now is one of the top wrestling information sites on the Internet". The truth is probably somewhere in the middle but there's no reason to completely disregard material on the site. Yes the Delete arguments are well taken but the Delete commentors just do not provide the "Phoenix Fury Leg Drop" killer finishing move. Herostratus 04:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod contested without improvement. Non notable wreslter, no evidence of multiple independent non trivial reliable sources, fails WP:BIO One Night In Hackney303 18:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per consensus. Redirect is unecessary since the title has POV issues. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research, the creator of the article seems to have created it as a general essay on fraudulent degrees. Does not have the tone or form of an encyclopedia article, instead it's an essay from start to finish. As noted in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day "Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance" Wingsandsword 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Scary Movie 5 is not even out yet and already a page on Scary Movie 6? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, unsourced and very little content. Atlan (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EXTREMELY POV, non-encyclopedic, little demonstration of notability, no sources. Hilal-e-istaqlal was already deleted once, though I can't remember what the content was. PROD tag removed without explanation. Miskwito 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close. This isn't a delete request, its a merge discussion, the nominator states as much in the nomination, stating he sees "no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main William Monahan article". The recent deletion debate was closed with a note that if you want to merge you go ahead and merge, and I'm looking at the edit history of the article and I can see no attempt to merge. There's no merge discussion on the talk page either. AFD isn't dispute resolution, and if you want to sort this out I suggest you get a mediator in. I can't see any value in rerunning this debate so soon after the last debate, Wikipedia is not a game, you don't keep playing until you get the end you want. Take time out, see if you can agree on a merge discussion after listing at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers, try the steps at dispute resolution and thenm if that all fails come back in a couple of months after it's all been tried seriously and with good faith. Hiding Talk 22:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page was previously nominated, and the result was no consensus. There is no good reason for a list of Monahan's works to be separated from the main William Monahan article. This list is basically a resume for its author. It fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and many, if not all, of the writings fail WP:NOTE, as not a single writing listed in the article in question has its own Wikipedia page. Also should be noted that a similar debate over the Awards of Aaron Sorkin and another one over the a list of Bruno Maddox's writings were both deleted after debates. Also, no page except for the main William Monahan article links to this list (excluding two redirects), and one author has been the only person to edit this page (with the exception of the two nominations)Black Harry 18:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC). I would like to also add that WP:NOT#REPOSITORY applies here because this list simply links to outside websites. Black Harry (T|C) 16:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the link above. No, it does not say that the bibliography needs to be forked, but it does provide advice on making it readable and aesthetic and that is precisely what BillDeanCarter is doing. In fact, he is following much of the advice laid out on that page (even if he didn't know about it). To have the entire bibliography on the article's main page would be unsightly, as it would be for Charles Dickens (who wrote numerous novels, short stories, magazine articles and co-authored many other pieces of literature). Although more famous, I consider this list no different than List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven. Note that the Ludwig van Beethoven article does not include this entire list (again, it would be unsightly). It rightly forks it. Awadewit Talk 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like BillDeanCarter is violating WP:CANVASS again. See examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. As of my noting this, five of the people he informed have all voted to keep this article. Black Harry 00:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As near as I can tell, it's a pet project of Kevin Kline and Phoebe Cates teenage son that never got off the ground. No IMDB entry. All the web references seem to be stale and/or written be Kline himself. Created by an SPA (Kline himself?) - Richfife 19:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game. Article is unsourced and I was unable to locate any reliable secondary sources. Prod was contested with message "lots and lots of g-hits for game." Chunky Rice 19:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:David Fuchs. Log PeaceNT 14:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this film's star even exists--or even that this film exists. In any case, it's way too early at this stage of production for this to merit an article. Blueboy96 19:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. While the keep advocates pointed out that things like Kennedy family, Kapoor family, etc have a history as a family, the key point is that those articles have a prose body which summarises the activities and evolutions of the family through history, while this article is not, as pointed out by the nominator. Of course, a prodified version created in future with the relevant details of the family's evolution, will provide something useful that a category alone, eg one for a fmaily or dynasty, would not. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a long tradition of not doing genealogical articles. This article is simply a list of articles created by one Arbuthnot about his ancestors. Many of the articles included are of dubious notability anyway. Further we already have Category:Arbuthnot family linking them all.--Docg 19:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even if many of the current articles on Arbuthnots are going to be deleted, at least a couple of dozen seem likely to remain, as will the articles on the Arbuthnot viscountcy and the Arbuthnot baronetcies and the two notable businesses that have been run by Arbuthnots. A better idea than deleting all of these pages would be to merge the most basic info on most of those sort-of-semi-notable Arbuthnots and all those who are mainly genealogical links into this article, add one of those nice "family tree" templates (see Template:Familytree, exemplified in the Roosevelt family article) and make it an overview linking the actually notable members and branches to one another. That is information not easily available now. (I also think it would be reasonable to merge Viscount of Arbuthnott and Arbuthnot Baronets with this article, if space allows that.)
The category is far less useful for this, and should probably be deleted, as should many other family categories. The basis for these categories is still genealogical, but while an article can take chronology and relationships into account in the presentation, may include sourcing and mention when exact genealogical connections are conjectures, none of this is possible with a category. Pharamond 05:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete or Merge There is already a Clan Arbuthnott article dealing with this family, so either merge this with that or delete.--padraig3uk 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Clan Arbuthnott, I am much more skeptical: I am no expert on Scottish history, but as far as I know a lot of this clan stuff is a product of 19th century Scottish national romanticism and the American market for Old Country nostalgia. This is a lowland family and the article points out that the tartan was registered in 1962. This seems not even to be a Victorian construct but much more recent. That there is at least one significant Arbuthnot family is verifiable and clear from the peerage. It seems from User:Kittybrewster's website (this page), that the viscountcy and the two baronetcies belong to the same family (I am assuming that there is good evidence for these connections). If that is the case, I'm convinced a good article could be written based on some of the genealogical secondary sources, such as James Balfour Paul's The Scots Peerage, that I saw cited somewhere (in another strange case of omission, it is not even cited in the Viscount of Arbuthnott page, but it was in one of the pages on a minor Arbuthnot). But is this clan real? Would people like Robert Arbuthnot, 1st Viscount of Arbuthnott (died 1655) or John Arbuthnot, 6th Viscount of Arbuthnott (died 1791) have regarded themselves as clan chiefs, or would they have been regarded as such by their contemporaries? Pharamond 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a military action that I'm struggling to verify. It may exist under a different name, or perhaps it doesn't exist at all, but I can't tell. Also nominating Action of 4 July 1805 for the same reasons - I confess to not being up-to-snuff on my European history in advance if it turns out there's information I'm missing. badlydrawnjeff talk 20:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Editorial decision based on what we normally do with album articles with not much encyclopedic info. W.marsh 00:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is a hoax/vandalism. What do others think? Postcard Cathy 20:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research, article is speculation without context about a creature on the TV show LOST, treated as if it's some kind of real-world creature, the creator of the article says in the talk page that without that article fans of the show would know nothing about the creatures and the article itself is a "major scientific breakthrough" (sounds like an admission that it's "Original Research" if anything). Creator of article has removed AfD tag, which has had to be replaced. Wingsandsword 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's a freelance journalist - so you can find a bit she's written using google - but really nothing about her. She suggested this - and is a friend of another - but nothing notable unless being an Arburthnot counts in itself. Some unsourced stuff has also been removed (see talk)-Docg 20:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced Computerjoe's talk 20:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 00:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Universal Life Church. Herostratus 04:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend Delete. Degree is non-notable and only issued by on organization. Additionally it does not fit with many of the other catagories listed on the main page. JDBlues 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This software is a front end to Panorama Tools and is covered on the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page. John Spikowski 20:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This have been discussed already at Talk:Hugin (software). So, no, it should not be deleted!
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally saved from speedy A7 as a contested PROD. Appears to be a fraternity based at single university. Ignoring the WP:COI-style nonsense in the article, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:ORG. Delete. --Kinu t/c 21:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://yawiki.org/proc/Panty_raid (an article about the first panty raid can be found here!)
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She is an NN Survivor contestant who did nothing overly of note on the show and nothing else she has done really warrants giving her an entire page. Appearing in a couple pageants (and the article doesn't even say how she finished), appearing in a minor role in a film and having a relationship with a famous singer does not make her notable. A google search gets an unimpressive 16,000 hits, less than most of the other Survivor cast members this season. -- Scorpion0422 21:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She played a very minor part in survivor. She was voted out early, and the only thing I remember about her is that she was voted out for being too annoying and useless in general. That said, the Miss Venezuela participation should suffice. Unless topics from Venezuela are inherently less notable than topics from the United States. So Keep.--Sucherror 04:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 03:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
School that is non-notable Phgao 10:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article about non-notable remote desktop software. See previous debates for similar articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RM-X General Purpose Control, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vncscan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Remote, etc. AlistairMcMillan 21:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was: seems pretty clear that this is a keep, with agreement that the article needs cleanup. I elected to close it early -- Samir 22:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a single about which there's little to be said; the article makes no claim to significance (it reached eighty-one on an unspecified U.S. chart for an unspecified period). The bulk of the article is made up of a list of trivia, little of which is of any interest to anyone but a hardcore Yankovic fan. Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This high school football player does have one article, in the Houston Chronicle.[51] That's not enough to satisfy WP:N though. If after arriving at college there's a significant increase in media coverage, this article can be undeleted at that time. ··coelacan 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Abandoned article created by SPA which has been inactive for almost a year. No incoming links. Seed 2.0 21:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Speedy Delete per G11 Band is not notable and article is a blatant advert. A1octopus 21:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant nonsense, just a group of friends with a website. Gareth E Kegg 21:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete no assertion of notability. Gwernol 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nom - Fails WP:MUSIC - no published albums, no airplay, no tours - nothing but a self-published album. Sources are both self-published. I tried prodding this article in hopes there might be more, but a novice editor and friend of the subject kept removing the tags even after notification that this wasn't appropriate. I wouldn't object to a speedy delete, but at least one other pair of experienced eyes should verify my reasoning Rklawton 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Aquarius • talk 00:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. —Visor (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep all and nominate particular songs separately if further deletion debate is sought.--Fuhghettaboutit 05:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These articles fail to meet the criteria for songs at WP:MUSIC. Most of them are also written in a non-encyclopedic tone, and contain original research or other unattributable statements. Some may be mergeable into their albums' pages, but most should be deleted. --DCrazy talk/contrib 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. I dislike bulk nominations in general especially when at least some of these songs are clearly notable as singles and/or well known Aerosmith songs. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Aquarius • talk 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A7'd twice (once after my neutral rewrite), then moved to reasonless prod. Brought to AFD since the small amount of research I did suggests notability and it's clear that its notability is questionable. 166,000 Google hits, recipient of several awards, thus I "vote" Keep. -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) 22:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per consensus and article's improvement. diff PeaceNT 14:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#OR, WP:NOT#DICT, just to name a few of the policies this article fails. ~ Magnus animuM ≈ √∞ 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except for one source (which is a picture about it being an all-stars, which is from the unreliable photobucket), we have no confirmation this is happening. Usually, we wait until this page shows the application for the season, which is the official confirmation by CBS.--TeckWiz is now R
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page was flagged with AfD notice as "not notable" by contributor with no other edits. The editor did not finish the nomination and did not respond when contacted so I am finishing the listing as an act of good faith, although I have added sources that I believe establish notability. --TexasDex 23:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]