The result was Delete. Mhiji 23:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jasbond
This article has been recreated fourteen times.
The result was Speedy Keep on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 02:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the page is about. It looks like a joke to me. Teo64x 20:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is apparently an inside joke for some operator(s) of VAX/VMS computer systems. The article is poorly developed and does not explain any context or details of the subject. Nimur 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allegedly about Mong Kok, Hong Kong culture. Lacks proper attribution and referencing. It's current and only source is a Geocities website - in Chinese. Though it may remain to be a clearly known implicitly understood concept in reality, the absence of reliable and verifiable sources does not satisfy it for inclusion. The article in its current states is highly subjective and plain original research (w/o sources). When I first came across this article in April 2007, reasonable actions have been taken to improve the quality of this article. I asked the creator of the article to provide additional referencing, for which the request has gone unanswered. I have also notified the WikiProject Hong Kong community to solicit assistance. Absence of action suggests that this article does not have enough clear notability and sources to support a Wikipedia article about the subject. Luke! 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyright violation. Sandstein 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan article about non-notable band. Should this article be kept, please verify whether they are German (I doubt that; their name sounds a bit awkward in German) and fix the category. Delete Kusma (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not really shown. Unless notability is shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - withdrawn. The Evil Spartan 23:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable author (who has, btw, massively spammed his page: see here) The Evil Spartan 17:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete unless fixed. The only external source that I see listed in this article is a link to a U of K press ISBN. That proves he's a published author, but that does not make him notable. Groupthink 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. PeaceNT 02:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not meet notability standards and is little more than a track listing. The only thing that links here is the artist page. Idioma 00:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 23:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No refs to indicate notability. Groupthink 01:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deletion, not a single reference, and the information has been split into respective console articles --Steve (Stephen) talk 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was considered for deletion on 16 October 2006. No consensus was reached for deleting it at that time; however, over the past seven months, I feel that the situation has changed. In the previous discussion, Wikipedians seemed to be concerned that the information in the article was useful and interesting. In general, I agree with this; however, I feel that the individual pieces of information are valuable, while, as a list, it is not particularly useful. Because of this, I added the ((merge)) template to each section, direction editors to the new pages. Then, deciding to "be bold" as a fairly new Wikipedian, I took some initiative and did it myself. Now, all of the consoles' articles contain the information in this list, making it outdated. Finally, none of the information in this piece seems to be cited, although it is corroborated by other articles (without citation). In short, this piece is no longer needed, and I think it should be deleted. bwowen T/C 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the main article. Sr13 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Is this list really neccessary"? There's a list of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography and articles on every installment of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection. Common sense should be able to help fill in the rest. FuriousFreddy 02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Dakota 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mishmash of rumors alleged to be specific to the African American community, without commentary as to their veracity, some of which are directed at specific individuals, companies or recognizable groups. Several are unsourced. No evidence that they are specific to the African-American community. Wikipedia is not the Black Urban Legend home page. Risker 02:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's... nothing to say about this movie. The only information that appears to be available is that the studio hasn't yet decided whether to make it. I understand that pre-release hype is big for movies nowadays, but this is just kind of ridiculous. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP, though it seems that some thought needs to be given to the article's general disposition. -Splash - tk 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completing improperly listed nomination that I noticed. I think the page should be deleted, myself, given that it's missing sources and seems to be almost totally OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I am the original nominator so maybe I cannot vote, but someone started the discussion while I was still writing my reasons--Mikerussell 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be deleted under the following wikipedia policy:
This article is a neologism that does not have a clear meaning. It began as an article exclusively about the Nazis on June 18, 2005, and stayed that way unchanged, without any references or much expansion for years until April 2007 when one editor tried to claim it was Platonic and widely used in academic history. I, and other editors, have found no evidence of this. Please see Talk:Blood and soil for more info. I would have argued to keep it as a Nazi article, but when I did more research, it seems clear the term is not recognized widely enough as a Nazi-exclusive term. The German term may be Nazi-exclusive: Blut und Boden (maybe an article as this about the Nazis would make some sense, or merged/redirect into R. Walther Darré?), but the English phrase has much less definitive meaning. Here are some samples of the term unrelated to Nazism:
I am going stop now but I could go on. This list did not take any more than just doing a Google search for "Blood and soil", and I did not include here any book, website or article that related to Nazism. Thus I believe this article should be deleted because it is an English language neologism and thus violates wikipedia's purpose and policy. I also think there is an undertone of racism to this article as it stood recently. One of the above cited articles is a right-wing U.S. hate group and this article is so indefinable and "loose", like all neologisms- it can be hijacked for political, unencyclopedia-like purposes. This is the emerging power of wikipedia itself, because if you do the Google search you will notice what first is listed. --Mikerussell 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In life it is obvious that Zionist Blut und Boden provided an excellent rationale for not fighting anti-Semitism on its home ground.
The result was redirect. Most of the valuable content is already existing in the main article, and a deletion is not necessary if a redirect to the main article can be used, which is why I'm going with a redirect. Sr13 07:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article was created in October 2005. Since then the TV show in question has, hopefully, faded from our collective memory, leaving only a blank void and the lingering question Who the heck is this guy? I don't know either, but I know that his 15 minutes were up a while ago. Herostratus 02:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was article listed in order to contest a prod, unrequired, article undeleted --pgk 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In actuality I do not think that this page should deleted. It was listed as a PROD on May 11 for the reason of "A list of almost entirely red-links". It was deleted on May 17. I believe that this was a mistake. I quite simply dropped the ball and did not see the PRODing of the article on my watchlist. If I had I would have contested the PRODing which would have brought it here. Ihave used my admin powers to undelete it and bring it here, if I should not have done this, I will delete it and take it to Deletion Review. This list is part of a series of lists for properties on the NRHP, divided by state, and in some cases, by county. (See List of National Register of Historic Places entries for the top level list.) It is my belief that any article on any property on NRHP would easily survive AfD. This list, then, is list that is most useful, for the present, as a development list, as per WP:LIST and thus should not be deleted. Dsmdgold 03:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 04:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of these schools exert any notability. All fail WP:NOTE and WP:ATT --TREYWiki 03:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has been mixed about Lists of songs about... in general. This one, however, seems clear-cut. A list of songs about telephones would probably be random trivia anyway. But as the talk page says, most of these songs aren't even about telephones. Many include telephone numbers, or even just the sound of a phone ringing. Serpent's Choice 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only one hit about this paper on Google or Yahoo--and that comes from a personal page at the University of Oregon. Fails WP:N. Blueboy96 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Sources added. PeaceNT 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally tagged ((Db-band)) with comment note that there is a German wiki article at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigi_Schwab, while my German is not very good, I am not seeing anything to support him as notable in English. A google search did not lead to anything worth using as a reference but did bring back a number of hits. diff The speedy was declined. Additionally this very short article has been unreferenced since Dec 2005 so fails WP:V, I searched for and did not find references to support the article but did find selling sites Jeepday (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete this shit, bitch. Krimpet (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic list, WP:NOT a collection of indiscriminate information. Leuko 04:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Indication of a consensus to merge, and that could still happen, but some information was added late that should be considered first. W.marsh 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This unreferenced article does not appear more notable then any other neighborhood in America. Other then as a target for vandalism I can see no reason for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Reference checks on Ghits are low and mostly blogs. The article does contain 3 spam links, It was proposed Prod, the prod was decline with a recomendation of merge [11] I attempted the merge, the merge had a single vocal opposer. The extensive debate can be viewed at Talk:East Oakland, Oakland, California#Merge of Jingletown, USA. If the community believes this article should be deleted or merged they may also want to consider the list of neighborhoods at East Oakland, Oakland, California. I leave it to Wikipedia to decide I am taking them all off my watch list. Jeepday (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Highly indiscriminate. Even if this were properly focused, a list of songs about nudity would be little more than trivia. This list, however, according to its own lede, is a list of songs "concerning or referring to nudity, nude, nudism, nudist, naturism, naturist, nakedness, skinny dipping, streaking, streaker, nude beach, depictions of nudity, nudity in sport, female topfreedom (toplessness), bare skin, bare all, indecent exposure, flashing, flasher, etc." This is broad enough to include "Hot in Herre" (due to a single line), and even an instrumental jazz piece, because it is named "The Stripper". Serpent's Choice 04:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Sr13 07:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what might be able to be said about an actual list of songs about animals, this list, by its own criteria in the lede, is a List of songs that mention an animal in their titles. Lists of songs by words in their title have generally been considered trivial and/or indiscriminate. Serpent's Choice 04:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Steve (Stephen) talk 09:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both Category:Roman Catholic entertainers and List of Canadian Roman Catholic entertainers were deleted as instances of overcategorization where a non-notable intersection exists. In this case, the relationship between an actor's or entertainer's religion and their acting/entertaining. Bulldog123 14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Trivial trivia. Sr13 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to its lede, "This is a list of songs that mention, but are not centered on holidays." A list of trivial mentions makes for a trivial list. Songs actually about Christmas are already listed at Christmas music; I am uncertain that other holidays have a significant enough impact on music to warrant this list even were its current content addressed. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per SuperDT. Sandstein 06:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable MonsterShouter 05:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS, at this time. The key reason for deleting these articles is essentially that they represent nothing more than a happenstance of intersection; hardly something an encyclopedia need worry itself over. The key reason for keeping is weaker: that this particular happenstance of intersection has some utility to a user of an encyclopedia (ie that it is encyclopedic). In my opinion, the basis in policy of the deletion case is firmer, but clearly there is no settled opinion on this particular article. I observe with academic interest the distinct shift in opinion since the previous AfD. -Splash - tk 22:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list, and its subpages, survived a 2005 AFD under what appear to be less strenuous requirements than currently exist. Lacking any context or justification, I do not see how lists of song by words in title, especially envisioned this broadly, are anything other than indiscriminate or trivial collections of information.
Despite my general opposition to mass-listing, this nomination, by necessity, includes the 26 associated subpages:
Regards, Serpent's Choice 06:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to an appropriate article. Foreign relations of Liechtenstein seems popular and already to cover the topic, so I'm just going to redirect there. As an aside, it is not helpful for someone to say "yeah, redirect to some article on Wikipedia". -Splash - tk 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This refers to an incident that received substantial coverage abroad because various media picked up on an "odd news"-style agency report during a slow news day. It received no coverage in Switzerland and Liechtenstein that I am aware of, though. That's because the Swiss Army is a militia comparable to the U.S. National Guard, its part-time soldiers have no handheld GPS, and consequently they stumble over some border very frequently (although admittedly usually not in company strength), and nobody cares about it or writes it up. Essentially, this merits a brief mention in Military of Switzerland (which urgently needs a rewrite, I notice), but not an article: we are an encyclopedia, not Wikinews. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD#A7. Trying to remember why this was on my watchlist, and why I didn't nominate it for deletion before. – Riana ⁂ 11:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability. As the article states, 'Just Press Play' is just a school band with no significance outside St. Joseph's College, Gregory Terrace. I can't believe that this article has survived for two and a half months already. Rob Lindsey 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable radio show on a non notable community radio station. A PROD was contested by an anon editor with no reason supplied. Mattinbgn/ talk 07:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Moreschi Talk 11:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A photographer of pale-faced girls in forests. In contrast to modern photography Ielegems deviates from strict realism in art, the article tells us: this may come as a considerable surprise to many modern fashion photographers, let alone photographers in other genres. No claim is made for book publication. However, claims are made for exhibitions. Despite numerous polite appeals on the article's talk page, virtually all the evidence for these exhibitions come via Ielegems's own website. I shall Assume Good Something-or-other and shall take all of these as truthful. One was held at Antwerp and is shown here; it seems to have lasted from February till March of some illegible year. Another, in Luxembourg, lasted a single evening (shown here). A third, in Beijing, also lasted a single evening (here) and seems to have been as much a party as an exhibition. The sole independent source (here) is for the Luxembourg exhibition and puts our photographer within "a continuously changing group exhibition that runs for nine weeks during the Summer season. A great number of domestic and international artists from all disciplines will be presenting their work". There are two other apparently independent sources cited: this interview on what appears to be the private site of one Simona Vinati, and some article in Dark-Spy-Magazine, which I suppose refers to "Europas größtes Schwarz-Bizarres Musikmagazin!!" (not a magazine of photography). So, there's been just one exhibition of any possible note (though no claim is made that it attracted any critical attention that got into print), an article in an obscure magazine, and a privately-published interview. This is very thin stuff indeed, for an article to which there are links from Goth subculture, Neo-romanticism, and Neo-Victorian. Some claims (the contrast to modern photography) aren't credible, some (the exhibitions) aren't verifiable and perhaps aren't notable, the remainder isn't even slightly noteworthy. -- Hoary 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to keep that stub rather than delete, then fine, I'll make that edit right now. Groupthink 08:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]John Africa (born Vincent Leaphart) was the founder of MOVE.
References
* Craig R. McCoy, "Who was John Africa?", Philadelphia Inquirer Magazine Jan 12, 1986
The article has now been rewritten to a point where it merits inclusion. I withdraw my AfD nomination, but since the article is now primarily about MOVE, I am going to request that it be merged with MOVE. Groupthink 10:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep by means of withdrawn nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 17:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is, to quote verbatim from WP policy, a "biography of a living person that is controversial in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral point of view version in the history to revert to". "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". Groupthink 07:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Krimpet (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article, something someboday made up at school one day 2005 07:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 01:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the date wrote as in article is not true, AFC not officially released the schedule as what wrote in 2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification #Asia (AFC). Second, with the schedule not yet released, also the format is undecided, this consider crystal ball which Wikipedia not permitted. Aleenf1 08:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. I'm not going to assume bad faith, but consensus and policy are clear. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 16:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable conference, The only hits its gets on Google news are blogs and it has not secondary sources. DXRAW 08:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should be fun. Nick mallory 08:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Clear precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination). Krimpet (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unmaintainable list, fails WP:NOT. The list of songs over 15 minutes in length was deleted in November 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs over fifteen minutes in length (second nomination)), but this is even worse. Prolog 09:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was TRANSWIKI to Wiktionary. Herostratus 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate listcruft. For some reason this survived while list of one-letter English words and list of three-letter English words were deleted. There is no assertion of why two-letter words are notable among other words and the list is as indiscriminiate as List of x-letter names or List of x-letter countries. Though I am aware of the "other crap was deleted" fallacy I fail to see the point of this. If this is useful to scrabble players then those interested in that should remember that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Also, as noted by the closer of the last AfD useful is not an argument tied to policy in anyway. Not keeping indiscriminate information with no assertion of notability is policy. MartinDK 09:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn --NMChico24 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sketchy notability. As usual, prod removed by page author without edit summary. NMChico24 09:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 00:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The company [30] website states "Imperial Jets does not own, manage or operate aircraft. As an air charter broker, Imperial Jets acts as an agent for our clients seeking charter air transportation and assists them in finding the best operators for aircraft." As an air broker, it is not a notable entity Russavia 09:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nom per cleanup. --NMChico24 23:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much speaks for itself. This is a non-notable mess that has no hope of being cleaned up. NMChico24 09:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MaxSem 08:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Football player not yet with professional contract. PROD contested by the creating editor for the following reason detailed in the edit summary "This article should not be deleted as Daniel Visevic has an involvement with Melbourne Victory Football Club, and is notable because of this." While the article makes an unreferenced claim that the subject is training with Melbourne Victory, he has yet to sign with them regardless of rumours. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be either a crystal-balling or a hoax. No sources have been cited, and there is nothing on the BBC website about this. It also seems to be unverifiable too, per the lack of sources. SunStar Net talk 10:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unreferenced article on a non-notable magazine. A contested PROD, no reason given. Mattinbgn/ talk 10:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Non-admin closure of orphaned AfD Hut 8.5 13:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an individual dog - and not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, in my opinion. greenrd 11:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. As correctly observed by Biggspowd, the notion that we should keep something because it was rejected from a 'main' article is indeed bunk. I would suggest that if a cleaned-up article were still unacceptable, that a better case for deletion would then be made. -Splash - tk 22:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another trivia article that is almost all mentions and spoofs of Pac-Man. Any relevant information (from this article) should be inserted in the Pac-Man article. This isn't encyclopedic content, it's just a cluttered trivia list with very little notable things. Yes Pac-Man has been spoofed and mentioned alot: but so what? Just about everything popular (and in some cases: not popular) is in pop culture. That doesn't mean we need an article here about it. One example from the article: In an episode of the TV comedy series Friends the character Chandler Bing is given a Ms. Pac-Man machine, and is seen playing it several times. That might be interesting to some, but overall: it's just not that notable. RobJ1981 11:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted by User:^demon per CSD A7. YechielMan 05:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally put this up for Speedy but the tags were removed by someone other than the original author. A NN street artist fails WP:BIO Fredrick day 11:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think this article should be kept or at least merged with another article about street performers Plus, the links that the user provided show that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 20 may 2007.
No. I meant the links on the talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 may 2007.
If he was not notable neither of these links would have been avaliable. Anywho, I have a couple of friends who visited England and said they saw him in York. They were therefore interested in reading the article. Case Closed.
The debate is cleary over. You can let it go now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.211.181 (talk • contribs)
The result was DELETED. -Docg 12:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is unverifiable, and appears to be a breach of WP:BLP. No sources have been cited for this "incident". There are no ghits for this 'incident' either. SunStar Net talk 11:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't establish real notability per WP:BIO. Neither being a mason nor being the ancestor of people would quite qualify. Crystallina 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"a Canadian equivalent of Great Britain's prestigious Dictionary of national biography. The original plan was for a dictionary of some 15 or 20 volumes that would provide critical biographies of the important figures in Canada's history from the 16th century to the middle of the 20th century."
Guyon has an entry in the first volume, given he lived prior to 1700. I've linked this bio to his article. In its bio of Guyon's seigneure, it describes Guyon and this group of pioneers as "all of whom were the forefathers of important families in the French-Canadian nation". Not news to us but more authoritative recognition from an encyclopedia-like source of his notability as a pioneer.
The result was delete (I'm not the deleting admin). Sr13 03:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax article. Can't find this guy on the roster of any level of Real Madrid's program. Metros 12:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who doesn't meet the criteria from WP:Band. The article mentions many bands of which he has been a member, and although some have articles and could be considered notable, an individual in a notable band does not necessarily make the person notable. It seems that this artist has no notable work outside of his bands and thus is not notable. Finally, the only source in the article is an attempted link to his new band's myspace. Phydend 05:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local theatre with 1 or 2 notable alumni. Delete. fethers 02:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"valley youth theatre" phoenix
Yields 17,400 hits. On what do you base your claim of lack of notability? Alumni Max Crumm and Jordin Sparks alone should qualify this theatre as notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zzglenm (talk • contribs).
The result was delete. Sr13 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's one thing to have articles on future releases (many, including me, object to that), but an article on something that doesn't even have name? It can't be notable — it's a thing of rumour and speculation. Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. Evilclown93 14:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball. The article says that it is "according to rumors", and an encyclopedia is not a repository of rumours. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules]]Inx272
The result was speedy delete as spam. --Seed 2.0 16:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly deleted per A7/G11, repeatedly recreated for no stated reason. No assertion of notability, no references, questionable amount of personal information. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Event does not seem to be a notable UFO sighting, having an article perhaps only to buttress the single image shown. ScienceApologist 13:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 19:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted for speedy deletion per non-notability, but doesn't qualify, since there is an assertion of notability. I'm moving this to AFD instead. This is a procedural move, so I have no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 13:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. W.marsh 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These corporate vanity articles and images were added by single purpose accounts, one of which (RLM2007) also attempted to redirect existing articles to their articles. There is a related report on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was Speedy delete - Non notable. Aquarius • talk 06:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable, WP:V problems. External link citing "Official Website" can't be reliable, considering the guy was born in 1869. Cool Bluetalk to me 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sr13 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find any confirmation; Article is loaded with speculative, unsourced data mcr616 Speak! 14:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyright violation of copyrighted ("© Pali Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved") non-GFDL content. This was a straight copy and paste of a web page from votesizing.org that lays out the "Guiding Principles" of a proposed political party. It wasn't an encyclopaedia article about that party. It was just an attempt to abuse Wikipedia as a free wiki hosting service for a straight copy of copyrighted literature written by the proponents of that party. Uncle G 10:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page was proposed for speedy deletion, but the creator added the hangon tag. I googled the article name, and I got a decent number of results, but they were more blog-type sites. I felt that a discussion pertaining to the deletion of the article would be more appropriate. Evilclown93 14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails to cite sources, the guy fails WP:BIO. He's non-notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
Subject was one of the co-founders of the Green Party in the United States, has mounted well publicied campaigns for state office, and is one of the leader of the GP in NY.
More to the point, GreenJoe has a history of marking dozens of GP politicians for deletion. Keep T L Miles 16:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. PeaceNT 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was originally deleted as a copyvio; however, one later revision did constitute original content. DRV found an assertion of notability, as well as several possible sources. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. PeaceNT 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They fail WP:ORG and the article fails to cite sources. They are not notable. Delete GreenJoe 15:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete `'mikka 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable "experimental rock artist" with a bunch of mp3 CDs for sale Mukadderat 16:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Earth mysteries" isn't a subject, it's one of dozens of terms used in crank pseudoscience to describe anything they think is odd. The subject is covered by other articles. SchmuckyTheCat 17:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was MERGE to Craigslist - this is an incident not a biography -Docg 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Rightly) contested speedy. While this does have multiple sources (I'd heard of her here, 6000 miles away), so technically does pass WP:BIO, I really don't see the need to have an article on her. Not only does she fail the ten days rule, let alone the ten year rule, but nobody is going to search on her name for this story. There have already been multiple similar stories since this one, and at most, this warrants a single paragraph in Craigslist — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A senior minister of some church who has apparently self-published a two books. This does not appear particularly notable. Judged by the tone of the article, it is written by people of his church in conflict of interest. >Radiant< 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has a couple of published books and multiple newspaper articles so I don't think it has a notability problem, but still it needs some work I would think. Billymumphry 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was list as CSD g4. Non-admin close. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – My proposal of speedy deletion for this page was based on an incorrect premise. Article was not recreated as Ozgod stipulated (content was: '((db-repost))Joseph Ryan (born 1970) is a photographer best known for his work with the Grateful Dead (1992-2001) and the reuniting of [[B...'). Speedy deletion should have been proposed per CSD a7, as this content is not the same as the content of the article nominated in the AfD process (content was: '((db-bio))Joseph Ryan, Born in February 1991, (Day unknown) is the founder of Shakirism. He worships Shakira. So far, he is the only known worshippe...'). My apologies for any confusion this has caused. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was recreated and fails to meet WP:Notability Ozgod 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the debate was Keep. PeaceNT 02:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Original research. Non-verifiable plot details. Andre (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable game with no reliable, non-trivial sources to support notability. Andre (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. Herostratus 03:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is a student who made a video which some people thought was funny and so he got some media mentions in a "famous for fifteen minutes" style exposure. I do not think this makes James Provan notable. Sam Blacketer 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to Order of the Arrow. There's little support for retaining the standalone article, and it's now been culled to contain so little substance it is an obvious candidate for a redirect as largely implied by Gadget850. -Splash - tk 23:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned that this unreferenced article doesn't meet WP:ORG as while articles like Scouting in Arkansas is a possibly reasonable article (if poorly done), the various districts within it are not. What next? Individual scout troops? FrozenPurpleCube 17:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete this version as an advertisement. If someone wants to create this article using published sources, not advertising copy, feel free. W.marsh 12:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cordarounds" is apparently a product name of a specific company. The article is writte like an ad. No independent sources are cited. Google gives some hits, but basically company pages, ad pages and blogs. Therefore the subject fails WP:CORP. I propose to delete the article as non-notable. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 17:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears non-notable with no independent third-party sources reporting on him - he's simply the pastor of a church in Perth, Western Australia. Orderinchaos 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 14:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. No independent references. -- RHaworth 17:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Article fails to meet any of the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (books). It could also be judged to be advertising and promoting non-notable material. Which in itself would be viewed as and covered by Wikipedia articles must not be vehicles for advertisement--Domer48 17:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Cool Bluetalk to me 18:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete (note that I am not the deleting admin). Sr13 04:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Crystal-ballery - FIFA 08 isn't even out for several months yet. Prod template removed by anon IP without edit summary fchd 18:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sr13 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No references and I couldn't find any good ones. Although I know the meme exists, it simply doesn't merit an article of its own. —AldeBaer 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Notable per the Blue Ribbon Award. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 01:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not assert notability of this school. No secondary sources are given. It therefore fails WP:ORG. Notability warning was added last September; no major changes since then. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject --B. Wolterding 18:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Being a Blue Ribbon School (along with the other 500,000) does not grant notability. Delete as Non-Notable. --TREYWiki 00:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. I'm not terribly persuaded by the keep arguments; they seem to be a bit blinded by the Oxbridge Effect. The universities are notable, not necessarily a ski trip their students jaunt off on. But the debate doesn't delete it, and I can't reach that conclusion on some basis from the article itself. (Disclosure, not that it matters: I have jaunted off on this trip myself twice). -Splash - tk 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear to be notable. 34 unique Ghits, most of which are blogs from students who participated in it. Ohconfucius 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. A new page could be created and this merged there as an editorial decision. W.marsh 13:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy with a lively discussion on the article's talk page. Notable? Or not? You make the call! Herostratus 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted per CSD G7. Log PeaceNT 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created by the subject and while claims have been made to the contrary on the talk page, conflict of interest remains a serious issue, particularly in the controversy section. COI not withstanding notability and sourcing are also a problem. Currently all info is sourced from the subjects own webpage, the webpage of his former employer a wrestling promotion and a profile on Online World of Wrestling, a website on which the profiles are largely user submited. If other source are provided during this AfD I would be happy to change my vote but currently it stands as Delete Daniel J. Leivick 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I protest the so-called "nomination" for Articles of deletion. I have every right to have a page here just as much as everyone else. This was in response to a couple of profiles that had my name on them. People wanted to know more about me, so my page was put up... only to have it continuously "nominated" for deletion. Mr. Leivick has voted it to be "deleted" which I also protest. I will NOT be responsible for other individuals who bash this site if it comes to that. Online World Of Wrestling and Obsessed With Wrestling are not even bothering to protest because of past dealings with Wikipedia. DO NOT DELETE!!! Summers95926 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Mr. Summers - he has every right to have a page. I VOTE KEEP THE PAGE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.249.247 (talk • contribs)
Delete as per nom; appears to have no notability content and appears to be a vanity page. LaughingVulcan 03:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable hoax, I doubt the references given really say anything about this character. Virtually the only Google hits are to video game and modern fantasy related sites. I'm listing here rather than proposing for deletion on the off chance someone turns anything real up about this. Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE and redirect -Docg 23:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Andrew Schlafly was nominated for deletion a little less than a month ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Schlafly. I have been trying to find sources for the article, and encouraging others to do likewise all this time. Nothing has come up, I was going to wait till a whole month had passed but have been encouraged to go ahead and put this in now.
One of the fundamental criteria for articles at wikipedia is verifiability. This is a core principle. Another core principle is Neutral point of view. If these two criteria can not be met then no amount of "notability" or "really wanting an article about something/someone" matters. I intend to show that this article can not meet the criteria for verifiability and can not meet a neutral point of view. These are the primary issues. I am not questioning his notability, his "worthiness" of an article, but rather the fact that no matter how much some of us would like a well researched article about this person it is impossible to build one meeting core wikipedia guidelines.
Article fails verifiability:
Below are all the sources that have been found the whole time we have been working on this article, and a month after a call was put out to find the best sources we can. These are not sources that can construct an article.
These articles focus totally on Conservapedia and offer only passing mention of Andrew Schlafly
These are primary sources
Sources that are referenced to address claims in the article but do not mention Schlafly
Secondary sources that mention Schlafly not related to conservapedia
This is it, there are no non-trivial secondary sources that we can use to build this article. Therefore, it fails WP:Verifiability.
Article can not be written with a NPOV
A review of the article history will show that it has been difficult to keep out inadequately sourced criticism. This is particularly worrisome for a WP:BLP article. The other angle though is most of the criticism is valid. There are things to say about this man that are not the most flattering. But there are no sources for it. There are no sources for the things that we can say good about him. The only thing we can put in this article are basic skeleton facts. Born, raised, married, children, ect. This is not an interesting article, and more importantly it is not an article that reflects a neutral tone when weighed against the extensive criticism that has been leveled against him and his actions.
This at first might seem like a contradiction, how can someone have extensive criticism and not have sources per verifiability? The problem is that the criticism is located in sources that fail WP:ATT.
Summary
Based on the above reasons and evidence I urge this community to reevaluate its previous decision to keep this article. Anything that needs to be said about Andrew Schlafly can be said in the conservapedia article since all the sources relate to that anyway.
Tmtoulouse 18:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - There are no new arguments being brought out from the last debate. Aquarius • talk 20:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hodgepodge of info already covered under other pages, specifically Iran's nuclear program, Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, 2007 Arab world-US coalition against Iran, and others. Title also makes no sense. What will the page be called in a year when the conflict is over? It may be well-sourced but all of this is already covered on other pages. Perspicacite 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Orderinchaos 09:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable primary school. The article provides little context other than its location. Mattinbgn/ talk 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster 02:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.. Trebor 11:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is still just a stub and no evidence of notability for the subject is given. There is no evidence that the works attributed to the author are notable. Buddhipriya 21:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn/speedy keep. Non admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No notability outside of the film. Delete and redirect —Gaff ταλκ 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 13:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A write-in candidate for president, who has absolutely no chance of winning at all. The reason i haven't speedied this is because he does appear to have a tiny bit of publicity in small newspapers, but that is hardly notable i think. 11kowrom 22:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted - BLP violation or attack page. Newyorkbrad 23:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Depending on how you want to look at it this is (a) a bio of a totally non-notable petty criminal; (b) a violation of WP:BLP (if the culprit's not been caught, presumably innocent until proven guilty applies to this guy) or (c) an unsourced attack page with some dubious allegations to boot (for one thing, what does the fact of being Muslim or African-American have to do with it; for another, what would a muslim be doing in the liquor store in the first place...) Since the speedy's contested & any prod will no doubt be deleted, bringing it here to go through the motions — iridescenti (talk to me!) 22:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD A1 and A3. —Kyриx 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The entire text of this article is a restatement of the title. There are also no sources. It also is not notable enough to merit separation from the article on Fiqh. Perspicacite 21:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. W.marsh 13:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page Game Boy line already covers this all. C. Foultz 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Speedy delete (same as K-Dimez, and Young G)) - Nabla 22:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The original version of the page was a copy and paste of the T.I. article, with "The Truth" substituted when needed. Most of that text has since been removed, but subject still does not assert notability per WP:MUSIC. No refs. I have tried to speedy several times, but the tags were repeatedly removed first by the original author, then by an anonymous IP. Bongwarrior 23:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: T.I. has been cloned again, this time as Yung G. Sohelpme 01:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a local politician does not establish the notability of the person. There is only one citation referenced in the article and that is a university newspaper. Much of the text in the article is taken from the politician's campaign website. Please see the Politicians sub-section of WP:BIO.
I have attempted to help the creator of the article establish the subjects notability as well as to confirm permission was given to use copywriter text from the campaign website. See User talk:Hobartcanuck#Tom Simpson (politician). Patleahy 00:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All material that originated from any campaign page has been delteted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.1.3 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't an important TV programme, article is a NPOV trawl through the Bible, from the POV of a believer, all of which is covered in more detail on the individual book articles. It also claims to be an up to date look at Bible scholarship, despite the fact the programme is now 12 years old. Gareth E Kegg 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasWithdrawn by nominator'. As I said in the nomination, this was procedural and I see a pretty good reason to keep and source, so I'm withdrawing. Redirects, renames, etc can go on the talkpage.--Isotope23 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this tagged as a speedy. I think there is an assertion of notability in this article, the problem simply is that it isn't sourced. Speedy isn't the way to go here, so I'm listing it here. No real opinion, this is a procedural nomination. Isotope23 15:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]