The result was Keep. GlassCobra 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she won a $1,500 prize, which was a second class win, and no indication that she meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist meets WP:MUSIC criteria #2 as she presently has had a charted hit on national music charts: Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill). Artist meets criteria #11: Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network: Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill). Artist also is features in a nationally airing music video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PxBGHjABnU —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 03:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is supplemental linked supporting content for at least three other Wikipedia articles. References include: Wyclef Jean, Sweetest_Girl_(Dollar_Bill), and The_Carnival_II:_Memoirs_of_an_Immigrant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 10:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as meeting WP:BAND by touring throughout Europe. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article long on details short on sources, but nothing jumps out as meeting WP:BAND. If reliable sources can be found to show that they meet at least one or the criteria there, that's fine but nothing yet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep --JForget 02:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This school is not important, and I fail to see why anyone would want to know about it (from an encyclopedia that is).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goalstuart (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this was recently proposed for a merge, the content of this article still has various issues such as poor sourcing, lack of notability, and rich of gamecruft while reading like a game guide, giving little to nothing to merge to its target.
This article's references are all derived from a single source, Battle.net. With that, there are no third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and non-players of the Warcraft series.
It also has a large amount of game-related cruft which may have the tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting a proper source.
Finally, Wikipedia is not a guide, and this article appears to be nearly entirely nothing more than a game guide. IAmSasori (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this article is still a stub, it has been left alone with no sources and lack of notability for half a year.
There are no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and the unfamiliar readers of this article.
Along with that, it has some if not all of its content comprised of a plot summary, something Wikipedia is not. IAmSasori (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While this article was recently proposed for a merge, this article has several issues hindering a successful merge, such as no sources and lack of notability.
This article has no sources whatsoever, let alone third-party sources to establish its notability to the real world and the readers who do not play the Warcraft series.
It appears to be comprised of fancruft that may attract original research to it, furthering itself from getting proper sources. IAmSasori (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is poorly sourced, unnotable fancruft with the majority comprising of plot summaries.
All the sources besides one were referenced from a Warcraft site Blizzplanet alone. The one source that isn't is referenced to a Wiki, which is not a suitable source to be used in the article.
Along with that, there are no third party sources to indicate its notability to the real world, implying that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would most likely have no interest in reading this article.
It appears to be rich in gamecruft which has a tendency to attract original research, furthering itself from getting proper from the right locations.
The article is entirely comprised of plot summaries, something Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable.
Finally, a precedent could be established that four of the article's five sections have been nominated for Articles for deletion and resulted as Delete:
Only Alexstrasza remains without having an individual article in the first place, and instead redirected to List of Warcraft characters. IAmSasori (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Keep - I vote keep. As the original author I am willing to put in whatever time is necessary to restructure the article to make it fall within policy if it does not already. I also vote keep because of the fact that the nominator has claimed there are hundreds he wants to nominate, and by looking at his history, i seems like a crusade to delete articles. Which I don't agree with. I believe article deletions should be few and far between and (based on the guidelines) only as a last resort (unless something is blantantly not proper). --businessman332211 (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But those are beside the point. The fact of the matters are
The result was Redirect to Warcraft universe. The nom sums it up really; an unsourced article with no content other than a plot summary and gameguide. If there is actually any encyclopedic information available, merging to the parent article would be unexceptionable, though I suggest that writing such a section from scratch in a less in-universe manner would be preferable.ELIMINATORJR 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While a merge has been recently proposed, there are still too many issues with this article such as no sources, lack of notability, and comprising mainly of gamecruft and plot summaries for any proper merging.
There are no sources whatsoever on this article.
With that, there are no third party sources to establish its notability to the real world, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article.
Half of this article appears to comprise of gamecruft which in turn would most likely attract original research, furthering itself from being properly sourced. There is even already hints of speculation in the article to prove such.
Finally, the other half of the article is nothing but a plot summary, which Wikipedia is not.
These issues, along with the fact that the article hardly has any attempts to rectify its problems for over a year, give little reason for the article to stand alone, let alone be merged to another target. IAmSasori (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate location. Judgesurreal, try not to paste the same thing in multiple AfDs as it implies you are just voting and not actually presenting an argument. Jtrainor (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Warcraft universe. The nom sums it up really; an unsourced article with no content other than a plot summary and gameguide. If there is actually any encyclopedic information available, merging to the parent article would be unexceptionable, though I suggest that writing such a section from scratch in a less in-universe manner would be preferable. ELIMINATORJR 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, unnotable cruft containing plot summaries.
There are no sources whatsoever on the article.
With that, there are no third party sources to establish its notability to the real world, suggesting that readers who do not play the Warcraft series would have little to no interest in reading this article. Chances are, someone is going to argue in this AfD that this article is notable due to its connections with the Warcraft series, but notability is not inherited and should establish its notability on its own rather than relying on Warcraft's notability.
The article comprises mostly of cruft, something that has the tendency to attract original research and further its chances of being properly sourced.
Finally, with the cruft are the plot summaries, which is what Wikipedia is not and is generally not acceptable, along with the lack of sources and notability. IAmSasori (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a resume or CV than an article...very much a vanity page. Notability is also inquestion ++Arx Fortis (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod apparently by the subject of the article. I dunno where to begin...a guy "famous" for wanting to build a giant lava lamp. Note that he did not build a giant lava lamp, but the town was given one by Target. There was one article written in a local paper about him wanting to build said lava lamp. COI issues aside, actually building a giant lava lamp most likely doesn't meet WP:BIO. Not building one definitely does not. SmashvilleBONK! 23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Balloonman (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an unsourced essay. The topic is probably notable, but this is not even a proper beginning of such an article, it reads like one person's view of the subject matter without any sources backing up the facts purported therein. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus but based on some of the comments here, this needs some significant cleanup soon to stay here. Mr.Z-man 05:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of Kurt Cobain. Docg 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge the pertinent information into the main article. No reason to feed the conspiracy theorists. Keeper | 76 23:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cobain's death is a subject of significant public curiosity. Since his death, there have been at least five books, two movies (including Gus Van Sant's fictionalized Last Days), and several tv shows covering the subject. The intent of this article isn't to focus on the conspiracy theories - it's to discuss his death in more detail, with the conspiracy theories being an element of that.
This isn't an effort to strip the subject out of Cobain's article to please the people who think it isn't notable or an excuse to give true-believers the chance to work unfettered. It's to cover a notable topic in more depth than we can at present. -- ChrisB (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 2004 two highly respected investigative journalists from Rolling Stone Magazine, Ian Halperin and Max Wallace published, Love & Death: The Murder of Kurt Cobain. The book reached #18 on The New York Times Bestseller list [5] The topic of Cobain's death is a highly relevant topic as there is much controversy surrounding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.167.29 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unsourced article on an obscure variant of Bridge. A Google search yielded no results, not a good sign of notability. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Flatworm. I copied the material over to what seemed like an appropriate section; editors with a better knowledge of the subject should review for accuracy. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be merged into flatworm article. Who signs articles? AvruchTalk 22:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced blp, with no indication that this artist or his manga is notable, so nn that we don't know when or where he was born. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Delete Its not sourced and OR so there is no material to redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this Dr. Who character is notable, no sources, and the way it is written, if you weren't familiar with Dr. Who you may even think that this "person" was real. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as notable, but several editors raised reasonable issues about the article, including tone and citation of some claims per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are criminals typically regarded as notable? I know that there is a 'major edit' tag on this page, but I think the community should decide based on what is here whether this person should be considered notable in and of herself. Perhaps, if she was a key member of any of the organisations of which she was supposedly a member, she should be mentioned in articles about those organisations. AvruchTalk 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Laura a criminal is really not the issue, since that statement itself doesn't conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Many, many "criminals" are featured in Wikipedia already because of their impact on society. Being labeled a criminal should never automatically disqualify an article from inclusion.
Laura was part of the Weathermen, a major underground organization that was involved in a number of "terrorist" activities that had a profound affect on the American psyche. If an organization was blowing up buildings today to protest the war in Iraq, you can be sure any of its members would be front page news. Wikipedia has already found her notable enough to include her on the Weatherman page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29. The FBI certainly found her quite notable since they have a large number of documents on her. Several movie makers found her notable enough since she was profiled in a couple of documentaries. I'm not sure how or why we should judge if she was notable enough. Who are we to decide that she's less notable than many other Weathermen members who are included in Wikipedia. This is the beauty of Wikipedia, that you can find out detailed information about subjects that you can't get anywhere else. Censoring this article does no one any good. Especially in this case when a new Wikipedia member has been working on this article for the last few weeks and has been at the computer for over 8 hours today alone trying to get this article published. I strongly believe this article should remain because it is useful, informative and notable. Ubothell1 (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With due consideration to those who have noted Whitehorn's connection to an organization for which there is already an article ("Weatherman(organization"), there is more to the biography of this living person than even that chapter of her life could convey. The entry as posted speaks to a still-unfolding life of activism, much of which postdates involvement in Weather. It's a phase of a life story that has been deemed substantial enough to warrant a full-length documentary film, among other things. Were this article to be subsumed under Weather, major content and relevance points would be forfeited. While there can always be improvements to an article, I favor giving this one a chance to realize those gains.--Historytrain (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While there may be POV work to be done on the article, I'd encourage a more welcoming approach to new posters than some of this language communicates. --Historytrain (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bit part actress, no reliable sources just imdb, youtube, myspace, and her personal website. So nn we don't even know when or where she was born, red flags of non-notability among modern biographies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep as meeting WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual, or no evidence of notability beyond a professional career. AvruchTalk 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed notability of this person. I am uninvolved and cast no vote. Ryan Delaney talk 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/nomination withdrawn.
Appears to be a non-notable magazine. I can't seem to find any independent reliable coverage about it, as seen here. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 22:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete all. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are ten articles, all about locations mentioned in the fantasy novel Wizard's First Rule, the first book in The Sword of Truth series. All of them are trivial - I don't believe any of them are mentioned in the following books. In fact, most of them are only mentioned in passing in Wizard's First Rule. A number of them, such as Horner's Mill, quote directly and copiously from the novel without attribution: here's the source (pages 375-380 or so) for most of that article's text. Furthermore, all of these articles describe their topics from a fully in-universe standpoint; there's no consideration of what relevance these locations have to the real world, and there is unlikely to be any such improvement, primarily because these articles have no such relevance. Every single one of them describes a "throwaway" setting which is used once and discarded.
There are a lot more articles like this one, as observed by Pete.Hurd in this AfD. I'll be opening further AfDs as appropriate. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, other than being the father of Oprah Winfrey. Ckessler (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G11 for blatant advertising. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement-like article written by single issue COI account. No assertion of general notability. AvruchTalk 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should either be merged to the series article or to an article about the actress. AvruchTalk 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure Tomj (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Advertisement written by single issue COI account (user name same as company name), no assertion of notability or sources. AvruchTalk 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by Maxim per CSD G6. RMHED (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made up word priyanath talk 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete I don't buy that every channel is notable - there has to be some reliable sourcing and it needs to be more than it exists. I couldn't verify either source listed without logging in and this [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.] recent AFD appears relevant. Spartaz Humbug! 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
I could not find a specific guideline about the notability of TV channels, but unless every TV channel automatically gets an article, there needs to be more than an announcement on broadcastermagazine.com about it. I couldn't find anything in google news which hints at this channel being notable, so I think it should be deleted. Minimaki (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable biomedical/pharmaceutical sales company. Thay have a lack of external coverage, and therefore don't appear to be meeting our present notability standards. If you click on "Timeline" on that search, you'll see virtually all the press they have is stock reports, in a generic and repeating format, and no other independent coverage. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable scripting language. 7 ghits of which only 4 relate to the language, 2 of which are WP articles. Author delete prod with no reason given. -- WebHamster 20:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A writer that seems to be accepted at various small process publications (such as the listed "50 Word Contests" for a hotel chain), but doesn't seem to receive any wide coverage or notability. the relevant searches on this name and various phrases like "writer" attached all seem to come up with older stories, such as those related to gold prospecting in the 1800s. Patrick, the modern writer, doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Recommend delete. Additionally, COI concerns: the article was created by User:Jessempatrick, and a WHOIS of jmpatrick.com shows that JM Patrick the writer apparently is this Wikipedia editor; so it was an article created by the subject as well. • Lawrence Cohen 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{
The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing this article for a general cleanup, when I noticed that everything that apparently makes this person notable has been taken from Yuu Shirota. Couldn't find anything from searching the name 'Mochizuki Okushin', so I get the feeling this is just someone trying to look good. ARendedWinter 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mochizuki was actually a class mate of Yuu Shirota, Yuu Shirota went toward his musical dream, mochizuki was more a bussiness major and he was part of all those musicals but was not a big celeb, Mochizuki was just a back up, just in case something happens to the main acts, you have to be a ture "otaku" to know this stuff.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mochizuki_Okushin" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.224.1 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. One of the keep votes was Useful information not available anywhere else. says it all really. Please see WP:ATA and WP:USEFUL. Spartaz Humbug! 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an article or a list. Wikipedia is not a video game controller comparison guide. This is what gaming websites are for. Mr.Z-man 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. GlassCobra 23:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable article about a specific on-campus residential house. Icestorm815 (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete under G11; article was created by company's marketing manager. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probable spamvert UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - deleted at AFD two days ago and almost immediately recreated. The only difference is that a non-reliable source has been added that announces a fight for which no contracts have been signed because the date and venue remain unconfirmed. An admin inexplicably declined the speedy so here we are again. Still violates WP:CRYSTAL. Otto4711 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable individual; nominating for deletion. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable individual; nominating for deletion. I originally tagged it as a speedy, but I think it may be better for a wider review. • Lawrence Cohen 19:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The country-code top level domain of a country that changed its name, and only ever had a handful of domain name registrations before being phased out. Wikipedia is not a directory, and I can't see any non self-published sources (i.e. anything but the IANA website) reporting on this. If it leaves a gap in a series, that's unfortunate, but necessary as I don't see the multiple non-trivial reliable published sources for standalone notability. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO as an actor as he does not have significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions (six episodes on Rules of Engagement as "Busboy" or an appearance as "Willow's friend" in an episode of Buffy notwithstanding). Prod removed with a reference to building an article from his IMDB listing but in the absence of reliable sources of notability his article should go. Otto4711 (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a Chinese doctor. nominated previously for deletion on the basis of notability, lack of reliable sources, and verifiability. The original discussion attracted little attention, and the closing admin thought that sources added in Chinese weren't reliable. After discussion at DRV, he remembered that foreign language sources can be reliable and agreed to relisting. We need to evaluate the Chinese sources (and any that can be found in English) to determine if this individual is notable and whether the specific sources are reliable. No opinion from me; I don't read Chinese. GRBerry 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC) As requested at DRV, I have specifically solicited input at the talk page for the wikiprojects on China and Hong Kong. GRBerry 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and full of POV.--JForget 02:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, possibly violates WP:BLP Eatcacti (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Balloonman (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed prod, notability concerns + verifiability of the article. Kwsn (Ni!) 18:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Balloonman (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non notable neologism or protologism, created and used in a narrow area of popular culture. As a rule, Wikipedia doesn't have articles on neologisms unless widely adopted. See WP:NEO →AzaToth 18:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is asserted (let alone sourced) about the notability of this school. Goochelaar (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by the nominator I appreciate the effort in sourcing and adding data, but I fail to understand how a school is notable because of its alumni (as notability is not inherited) or because it had some internal problems (every apartment building has them, now and again). As for WP:OUTCOMES, it nowhere says that school, secondary or otherwise, are inherently notable (they have to comply with general notability guidelines); it just gives some data about deletion debates. Goochelaar (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per improvements in article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was deleted once previously by proposed deletion, re-created, and proposed for deletion again. Since prodding twice is invalid, we go to AfD. The prod reason given this time was "no evidence of notability"; similar notability concerns were raised the previous time, too. Although this is mostly a procedural nomination, these concerns seem valid to me, barring evidence to the contrary. — TKD::Talk 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep --JForget 01:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. These terms belong in a category, and "List of wine terms" would be the same thing as it is now. ^demon[omg plz] 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 17:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There are a number of formats currently used on Wikipedia, both generalized and specialized, for articles that are lists. (...) Formats for specialized lists include: (...) 2. glossaries, a type of annotated list, where the annotations are definitions of the list's entries, such as Glossary of philosophical isms"
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO, the article is about a poker player with no significance tournament results, has only one World Series of Poker money finish, 9th in the 2004 WSOP $1,500 No-Limit Hold'em ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 17:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did start a discussion at the Wikipedia Poker project about this, with aim to codify poker bios a bit better since they aren't covered more spcifically in WP:BIO, even though the general criteria does cover the situation pretty well. 2005 (talk) 07:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:MADEUP. Can't find a definition for this word anywhere. Even if it were a real definition, it certainly doesn't belong in wikipedia ARendedWinter 16:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established: the links are not by independent sources, or if they are, they do not assert any notability of the subject (e.g. an editorial piece where he is quoted as dining with the editor ?!) Raistlin (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raistlin, I believe that Time Out and NYT are unbiased sources and the fact that the author had dinner where the subject was present does not make that article biased. As for notability, I believe we can assume that the fact Thomas Friedman (whether or not we agree with his views) is a respectable and notable journalist and knows of the importance of the subject Sameh El-Shahat and respects him and his opinion to the point writing an entire editorial about it. It is notable that he wasn't lauding El-Shahat's work, please do bear that in mind.
I did take out the NYT quote if that is the reason for deletion
I live in London and I can tell you that this guy is very respected amongst art collectors (who collect his pieces as art). On the net, he seems to be googled a lot, not only for his furniture, but for his views as well.
It would be a shame if there wasn't some information about him on Wiki.
Best
Artisticcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisticcc (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google searching turns out a handful of results. So, please, substantiate, modify the article, or this is a snowball delete in my opinion. --Raistlin (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guys,
Point taken. He is an artist of growing repute and as such there are not as many sources available about him as Newson or Le Corbusier for example. I did find an article which is mostly dedicated to him in the Gulf News newspaper, which is the most respected English Language publication of the Gulf which I added (http://archive.gulfnews.com/weekend/arts/10153407.html ). I believe it shows notability. I took away the bit about his painting as the artist himself does not want to publicise it. I also altered the shape pf the article.
As for the comments by Thomas Friedman, I believe that a good reason why he did not say "world famous furniture designer Sameh El-Shahat" is because it is really beyond the scope of the article. However, it shows the furniture designer to be pre-eminent enough to have his opinion taken on subjects outside his speciality by one of the most respected journalists in the world today.
Let me know what you think and I thank you both for highlighting these points. I hope you will not delete it after the changes.
Best
Artisticcc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artisticcc (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Artisticcc (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I am sorry, it seems that i did not sign my last 2 previous entries for which i apologise. I truly hope that the article on El-Shahat will be removed from the Articles for Deletion category today. Artisticcc Artisticcc (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD A7. Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. db-nn tag was removed by an IP editor who added some possible justification of notability, but I'm not convinced Matchups (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Crown of Stars (series). In regards to Jay's comment, my own practice is to delete an article and recreate it as a redirect, which helps prevent reverts. If there's a need to access a deleted article's history in the future, there are people who can provide it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character with no claim of meeting WP:FICTION in article. I had redirected this article to the one on the series, as per WP:FICTION, but this was reverted by another editor. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like a consensus on what to do. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect all to List of Daria episodes and possibly merge by interested editors. I'll leave a note for this AFD on the respective talk pages, which would also be the first place to bring up sources and a case for recreating specific episode articles. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every single episode of this television show does not need its own article. None have established notability or real world relevance outside of show and are mostly fancruft and unnecessary trivia items. The only outside links for each episode are the TV.com and IMDB links, and then multiple links to a van site. The basic info for the episodes is covered by List of Daria episodes. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restart over Very shoddy looking article, in reality shouldn't this article be about the southern island in sonic rush adventure?Wolly da wanderer (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong/speedy delete - WP:NOTE and WP:SPAM - 20 yr old star with no non-wiki google references? Several related articles that were speedy deleted or are currently under afd include Grasscutters (see User_talk:Dankeat), Grasscutters FC. Found this page due to vandalism to Heat pump. User A1 (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable compilation album TubeWorld (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod'd a week ago the prod was removed. Nothing to establish notabilty. Article is nothing more then a long plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Ridernyc (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, but clean up. Davewild (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not cite references to back up its assertion of notability or its claims of membership, does not cite official participation in any governing body, provide any verification of 'affiliation' with the United Nations and on the talk page is an allegation that the article is lifted largely intact from the website of the organisation. Problem tags are generally old, no active discussion on the talk page indicating likelihood of revision/improvement. AvruchTalk 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable phone. Wikipedia is not a Sony/Ericsson catalog. An article for this phone will find few substantial secondary references; all that's available are reviews. Mikeblas (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nominator has changed his stance because the numerous sources and changes made since the initial nomination that clearly establish notability using reliable sources. This is a non-admin closure. spryde | talk 18:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable barbeque, referenced by a non-internet link to an unknown local paper, and a 404-link to a supposed history page. Mayalld (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Anti-Americanism. GlassCobra 23:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied dictionary defenition. Post-transwiki PRODing removed. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied dictionary defenition. Post-transwiki PRODing removed. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:This article is short now, but there is always room for expansion. That is what Wikipedia's stub concept is all about. There is plenty of information that can be added in the future, and it does not have to be added today. This article is in a category called "English idoims," which has many similar articles. Hellno2 (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: This article has already had something added to it since I last checked yesterday Hellno2 (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. These is no need for an article on every unit type, nor how to use them. Improbcat (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as leftovers from AfD about the artist. Also deleting A Walk in the Park (Jordan) and A Walk In The Park (Jordan), a redirect. GlassCobra 23:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. No sources given. Unable to find any reliable sources. Also see Tom_Jordan_(singer) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Young for a Girlfriend. GlassCobra 23:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. No sources given. Unable to find any reliable sources. Also see Tom_Jordan_(singer) Mdbrownmsw (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little content and a notability tag has been in place since about August. Brollachan (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; non-notable band with no releases at all, much less on a notable label. GlassCobra 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom, fixing malformed AFD from User:Sukiari. No vote. shoy (words words) 16:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 02:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be one author who deleted a proposed deletion [17], and previously a notable tag [18], without comment. This article is not verifiable. The game looks fun, but I suspect that this article is a hoax. and should be deleted as it is not encyclopedic. Mitico (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Pescetarianism. GlassCobra 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the 8 ghits, it seems that this definition can't be expanded into a verifiable article. MER-C 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable article on a non-notable baseball team. 5 ghits. TLDR also applies to this extensive diary of events. MER-C 12:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. There's no violation at all, so I am closing this nomination. About the nominator, I assume good faith, he looks like a novice here. --Angelo (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GFDL violation from Survivor (TV series).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.
--As3x (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A band member dying in the middle of a performance is very unusual, but unfortunately I can't verify this. 8 ghits. MER-C 12:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. OR, unsourced, NN, looks like an advert. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Organisation with no reliable sources which give any indication of notability. Pak21 (talk) 12:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as for Why Make Clocks. Tikiwont (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-released 4-song 7-inch EP recorded by midwestern-USA band Why Make Clocks. One-line article since 2006, seems part of a walled garden. Not a notable release, possibly not a notable band. You decide! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 23:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No evidence that any of his bands are actually notable; none of them have Wikipedia articles (though that in itself is not proof) and most links are to myspace pages etc. No prejudice to re-creation if evidence to the contrary can be produced. ELIMINATORJR 00:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While some of his bands may or may not be notable, he himself doesn't appear to be individually notable (yet) for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There was some talk during the double-length discussion about additional sources that would supply notability, but the only source that ended up being added was a trivial listing of the top five brokerage firms in his local area, the fifth of which was his. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. • Lawrence Cohen 23:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mangojuicetalk 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, originally nominated for deletion in January, is as it states - a list of famous people who wear bow ties. On first appearance the article is well sourced and has a large opening as to its point but upon reading the text it becomes apparent that this should be probably be part of the bow tie article and not part of this article as it relates to the effects that the bow tie goes under when worn by famous people.
Once this opening section is looked over the article is nothing more than its title, which is about as useful as a list of people who have pocket watches. This articles existance is based on its opening sections which shouldn't be in the article in the first place and serve only to give the impression this list should exist. –– Lid(Talk) 10:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Well-written" does not equal "encyclopedic." Neither does interesting. "Supported by research" does unless the topic of that research fails policy. An indiscriminate list of bow tie wearers fails policy. Otto4711 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The evidence unearthed by Tony Fox appears reasonable, and of course English-language sources may be hard to come by. ELIMINATORJR 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A not notable band from South Africa. Malcolmxl5 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced autobiography. Prod removed by author / article subject himself. Nehwyn (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I declined to speedy delete this article as it isn't blatant advertising and there is what could be considered an assertion of notability. I do think this article should be deleted however. Notability is weak and there are no independent sources that discuss the website. WjBscribe 09:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar vein to deletions of "list of weapons in insert fictional work here" (see, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Weapons in the Resident Evil Outbreak Series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of firearms in films), this should be deleted as Wikipedia is not a plot summary. Unsourced and incomplete. MER-C 09:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn, the nomination was initated by the creator (who clearly wants the article kept, per the 09:34, 20 November 2007 comment) because a user wanted the article deleted, a view which has such been repealed by this user (at least temporarily). Daniel 09:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Wotif.com - speedy removed by 2 people, but I see no harm in getting consensus. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Great work by User:Kateshortforbob in finding references. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable company, reads like an ad, couldn't find reliable third party sources. ~Eliz81(C) 08:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasSpeedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising page for Adbusters organization, distinct lack of reliable sourcing beyond local newspapers and sources directly related to the organization. Most of the article is sourced only from the organizations website rather than what is required by our policies. Article has existed since 2003 so there has been plenty of time to establish the notability and find these sources. I attempted to suggest that those watching the page clean it up by leaving appropriate tags, but these have been removed by an anon editor. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. W.marsh 01:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable unsigned band. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:MUSIC policy Secretlondon (talk) 07:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages:
Secretlondon (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion nomination Fails the fiction notability and the writing about fiction guidelines. Its about a single plot element of a single book, and there is no evidence that any independent sources discuss this element. Thus, there is no real-world context that can be provided about this. Thus, it should be deleted. Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. W.marsh 15:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is poorly written, trivial, and the dog cannot be a balloon. --Syndrome (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD#G7 - only author has blanked page and CSD#A7 - web content with no assertion of notability. Davewild (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources, nonotable award, don't think it can be PRODed. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 06:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'm just not seeing any substantial coverage as per WP:WEB W.marsh 15:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:WEB. Alexa says its rank is >150,000 and it has less than 17,000 G-hits. I feel like, while the site itself is good, it doesn't pass notability for webpages. Axem Titanium 20:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very minor, non-notable office in The Sword of Truth series. If I recall correctly, it is mentioned in a grand total of one of the books in the 11-book long series (not counting the prequel novella, where it is also not mentioned). Article provides no information out of the universe and could probably be speedied for such. I do not recommend a merge, for as stated this is a very minor office in terms of the storyline and merging would not provide any useful content to the target article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A7 by Keegan (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kayleigh Ross[edit]
Contested proposed deletion of a possible autobiographical article. Little assertion of any notability in the article, no news articles to be found and nothing on the web shows anything of significance. Fails to have biographical notability. Peripitus (Talk) 06:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Music4Games[edit]Not sure if this site passes WP:WEB. Approx. 15,000 G-hits (although Google has been weird for me and it seems to vary) and Alexa is >250,000. Some of the references seem to be statements of fact, rather than notability as well (ie, Music4Games did this rather than Music4Games is important for this) and some of the cited pages are not quite reliable (GIGnews is one). Axem Titanium 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dare to Dream (Negus album)[edit]
Orphan article on a possibly non notable album. It was by a member of a semi-notable band, but that member doesn't seem to be notable enough for his own page -- is that enough? Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Freshly Squeezed Films[edit]
Non-notable organization. Has been prodded and deprodded. A thorough search for verifiable information for Major Awards shows nothing aside from organization's own website, and not much regarding film festival. Notability can not presently verified or established. Article lacks verifiable material from reliable sources for anything. Optigan13 (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Davewild (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 2013 in television[edit]
Wikipedia does not peer into the future. A list of putative future television events, especially when it contains unsourced speculation about the nature and contents of those events, is not appropriate encyclopedia material. — Coren (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Buzzsaw Haircut[edit]
No assertion of notability, barely any sources, and is a literal example of something people made up in school one day, being a student funded publication :) J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. With respect to the other mentioned articles, you may want to consider (besides editorial solutions) also proposed deletions, referring to this AfD. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Confessor (Sword of Truth)[edit]
I am listing this article for deletion for the following three reasons: 1. It is not notable. The topic is an obscure concept in an equally obscure fantasy series. The novel is already listed on Wikipedia, so perhaps what little material can be salvaged (see 3. below) could be moved there. 2. It is not written in appropriate tone, possibly because... 3. It is rampant plagiarism; most of the text is simply copied verbatim from the original fiction. I do not have the originals at hand (if I did, I'd have opted for SD) but as far as I recall, this is copyrighted stuff. Freederick (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. GlassCobra 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Scott Mingus[edit]Fails WP:BIO. Unlikely to be expandable beyond a stub when original research and related material sourced from conflict of interest are removed. Closeapple (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. GlassCobra 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] William J. Coldwell[edit]
Unsourced BLP page of NN developer that appears to have been authored and edited extensively by its own subject, inventor of an extensive suite of redlinked technologies, with article-lede notability assertions that include "worked with Matt Dillion at BEST". Probably a real nice guy, but what is he doing in the WP writing pages about himself? --- tqbf 03:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bridge Street Town Centre[edit]
Spammy article on non-notable lifestyle center in Alabama, seems to fail WP:RS (only sources I found are about the center's opening, nothing else). Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 15:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Until The Light Takes Us[edit]
Non-notable genre documentary that hasn't yet come out. No independent references. Search term ""Until The Light Takes Us" -blog" only returns 1350 gHits many of which are non-independent advertising. -- WebHamster 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic[edit]
Here we go again. Just when Wikipedians had reason to believe the "apartheid" gamesmanship was finally over, along comes this page. This page was obviously created in response to the article Allegations of Israeli apartheid, and there isn't anything here that can't be covered under Antiziganism. Speedy delete, the sooner the better. CJCurrie (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I feel particular consideration should be paid to the article's creator comments, T. Anthony, especially [29], [30] and [31]--victor falk 04:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 05:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] The Driven[edit]Only thing this band has going for them is the label. That is still not that strong. This band is not notable. Metal Head (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 05:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Katie Deyerle[edit]
Non notable ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow (Speedy deleted per (CSD G7), only editor has blanked the page. using TW). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 13:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] FUR...You Deserve It[edit]
Prod removed. Non-notable video clip at best. A bunch of ext links and 'see also's have been added, but still no refs, or even links to the clip, supposedly on YouTube. Only thing I can find with reliable sources under that name is a single skit from a 1984 ep of SNL. Ravenna1961 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - jc37 11:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1[edit]
These DVD releases are already adequately covered by Looney Tunes Golden Collection (at least at revision [32]). Individual articles for every DVD with full lists of the 50-60 cartoons in each set are completely unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't a DVD catalog. Collectonian (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 01:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Daniel Maldonado Jr.[edit]
I previously proposed the deletion of this article but an editor removed the PROD tag without addressing those concerns. I'm nominating it now for the same reason: The article cites no sources and is chiefly comprised of original research. It does not meet the notability criteria at WP:BIO and appears to be vanity. If anything in the article can be sourced (I've looked with Google and found no secondary sources), I'm in favour of a rewrite and removal of the unverifiable material. ~EnviroboyTalkContribs - 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. I felt they presented a far stronger argument, and when I applied appropriate weight to arguments about "inherent notability", "usefulness" and "already been nominated and kept" I feel there exists a consensus to delete. If any user wishes to contest this decision for whatever reason, please use deletion review. Daniel 12:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jeb Bush, Jr.[edit]AfDs for this article:
Delete Not indepdently notable per WP:BIO and WP:NN. While there are references to him on the smoking gun, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a tabloid. It is likely only to attract violations to WP:BLP and possible legal issues. Per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." Strothra (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-"He had sex, got drunk, went to college, and now works for a living"; that is not notable by itself.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment -Also, just because this is the third attempt and the other two failed is not a valid argument.---Iconoclast Horizon 07:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Pigman☿ 05:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Belasagar, Kulpahar[edit]
Unreferenced, tiny stub, only google hits hit wikipedia or mirrors. mrholybrain's talk 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 04:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Late Night Specials[edit]
Unnotable short film. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Delete arguments were based on apparent lack of notability. Keep argument was that notability is established through its presence at certain shows, e.g. Frieze Art Fair, which is one of the top art venues in the world and to which leading galleries are only invited by a jury. Please note WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument. The article certainly needs attention and I hope the editors wishing to keep it will do some work on it. Tyrenius (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Rivington Arms[edit]
The result was no consensus. The article needs much work but this is a genuine concept so there are no policy grounds to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mediocre American Man Trilogy[edit]I don't think it should be deleted, but it was "prodded" and I believe it may be contestable. I think it may be kept if in fact a real thing (I know the two films are intended to be part of a loose trilogy, but am not sure if it was named). Tim Thomason 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. W.marsh 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sycamore Trails Pool[edit]
no assertion of notability. No sources to verify information. This "pool" reportedly won an award back in 1997, but the organization that doled out the reward does not even have a Wikipedia article Keeper | 76 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Mr.Z-man 05:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] List of Dutch supercentenarians[edit]
I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:
Examples of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" which are specifically excluded by policy as Wikipedia is not a directory. None of the articles give any evidence that the linking of the age status and nationality status is in anyway notable. Guest9999 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comments Suppose these 4 articles gets keep. Then they will need working on. The articles will need to be properly cited and clean up. The only user left is Bart Versieck. Out of the 800+ members from the Gerontology Research Group (whom specialize and contribute to this field), we got only 3 full-time members here on Wikipedia, with 1 of them being the leader. The rest are all meat puppets. So the other 2 are me and Bart Versieck, whom we have worked under Robert Young. Robert is now banned so there's only the 2 of us left. My solution is to notify him of the 4 articles and he'll take care of it (user Bart_Versieck), like he has for the oldest people article and the hundreds of individual supercentenarian biographies. I'm not going to take lead since I don't want to be full-time on Wikipedia. I'll be his side-kick under his assistance, and will watch for his typos and mistakes, and possibly help defend him on rare occasions if necessary, or temporarily take over if he goes on vacation or something. Suppose these 4 articles get delete. Then we won't have to worry about it. Neal (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect humblefool® 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Undermine (Warcraft)[edit]
As is indicated already in the article itself, this article is about a location that is barely mentioned in Warcraft lore. Because of this, there are no references for it and it is doubtful there ever will be. Obviously no real-world notability. However, I have added information about Undermine to the Azeroth page as suggested by others. -- Atamasama 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Lacking multiple independent third party coverage and I think a notable award would have garnered some coverage if nothing else. Also borderline G11. Spartaz Humbug! 23:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wrike[edit]Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Advert.Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, it's snowing in here. east.718 at 02:14, November 24, 2007 BackupRight[edit]Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Advert Hu12 (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tyrenius (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Youlicit[edit]Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, launched May 2007, only references are self created (wordpress). Advert Hu12 (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Unreferenced nonsense. (Actually jenovaism is the preferred spelling - but I still think it is non-notable.) -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jenovism[edit]Sounds like a hoax religion, don't think G1 covers it. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete CSD A7, no assertion of notability (but also CSD G1). --Angelo (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lady to tiger[edit]
Original research, unreferenced, inaccurate and most likely as a result of watching 'the masked magician' on tv Kosmoshiva (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.. --Oxymoron83 04:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bollok wok[edit]Orphaned article, don't see much notability here. Registered 251 Ghits. jj137 (Talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|