The result was Keep. — Scientizzle 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a deletion nomination of three articles about robotics projects. They are part of a walled garden of related articles by Nct (talk · contribs), who appears to be involved with these projects. None of these robots appears to have substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, failing our notability guideline. I will also be nominating the articles about the scientists involved in these projects for deletion for the same reason. Sandstein (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, has not made the requisite appearances in the Football League under notability guidelines for football players. Jonesy702 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Three appearences in the Conference aren't notable either by the old or the proposed guidelines. Sebisthlm (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability in question. I can't find anything about the subject's notability. There is not even a mention of the subject in any University of the Philippines sites or the "Father of Selective Logging System of the Philippines" claim aside from the sole external link Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. (closed by non-admin) RMHED (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Source of many major vandalism attempts on Wikipedia. See WP:DENY. Notability questioned. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. James086Talk | Email 08:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a non-notable comic from a single university campus. The only relevant result from a simple Google search was the link to the Wikipedia article. The talk page stated that the motivation for writing the article was to inspire the comic's creator to write more episodes. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly notable. I couldn't find any secondary sources. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable planned community. Page used for marketing purposes most likely. Article created by Director of Sales of planning group. Leeannedy (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 09:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page has no sources, and there are no hits for a graphic novel called "Bloody Lucifer" anywhere on Google. It seems to be bad fanfiction at best, vandalism at worst, and should thusly be removed from Wikipedia as quickly as possible. TheJoust (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep per criteria 1, nomination withdrawn and no other delete opinions present. GRBerry 15:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic collection of newspaper articles, including extensive copyright violations (direct translation of copyrighted articles from the spanish media) and a final section named "editors comment" (now erased) which confirms that this is nothing else than an essay. It has been deleted 6 times from WP.es Varano (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by User:Melburnian (CSDG10). Non-admin closure. shoy (words words) 00:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With members such as Gavin Wanganeen and Neville Bonner, I suspected a hoax. When I saw one of this editors previous contributions - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian anti communist organization - this suspicion was strengthened. No evidence of actual existence, let alone notability can be found. Mattinbgn\talk 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the sources don't show that this actor meets the notability criteria. The only reliable source cited isn't about this person, but about Matt Riddlehoover. Prod removed by creator without comment or improvement of sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was previously deleted as CSD A7 (when listed as Fratricide (Band)), after moving to the correct title, another editor re-tagged the article. I elected to move the article to AfD rather than re-deleting in order to allow discussion.
Looking over the primary author's talk page, there seems to be a question of whether this band's subgenre actually exists. In any case, the article seems to be mostly WP:OR and doesn't establish notability. No references exist. Looks like a delete to me. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both the actress and the event described appear to have only occurred in the creator's head - 0 Ghits, for example - but the article is being recreated as fast as it is deleted and, strictly speaking, "hoax" isn't a CSD criterion. So here it comes.➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was speedy deleted before, and while it looks a lot nicer, it's still blatant WP:SPAM. Dougie WII (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made up genre of music. The only hit on google is this article. All other hits are about geology. Ridernyc (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per BIO & SNOW SkierRMH (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Creator contested prod. Only claim of notability competing in the "Blue Team" of a reality show. The notability claim makes A7 unaplicable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax. No Google hits for "Astra serpent plant" or the binomial "Phalaenopsis sirtalis" (which seems to have been constructed by combining the genus name of an orchid with the species name of the common garter snake). If this plant were real, there would be material about it all over the Web. Deor (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination by 86.146.198.25 (talk · contribs). S/he writes on talk page: "The person in this article is not famous at all, nothing interesting about his achievements; he is a nothing more than a common person living in a Jordanian village". Procedural nomination; no opinion is being expressed by me. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 11:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of real-world notability. Article is entirely in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a neologism. I can't see this expanding much beyond a dictionary definition. Pagrashtak 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild 20:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered in the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete under CSD A7 - no assertion of notability. James086Talk | Email 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, no indication of notability. Rtphokie (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Caesura(t) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:RS, so questionable whether this is a "real" genre. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian ska. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
here, and here; as a listings category here; there’s a “Christian soft rock station 104.7/The Fish”; the term is used in Maury Dean, Rock ‘n’ Roll Gold Rush (Algora 2003), ISBN 0875862071, p. 377: Pat Boone as a “Christian soft rock crooner” (found on google books); and there’s a rather unflattering reference in the Arkansas Times of Oct. 4, 2007: “after listening to a solid hour of contempo-Christian soft rock, we can tell you that — bar none — it is the crappiest music in the universe”. Also half a dozen peronal reviews on Amazon, and then I got fed up and stopped going through the hits (there were a few thousand). So it does seem to be a genre that people find useful, however suspect it might be in terms of taste. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant intersection, how exactly is a Christian music video special or what intrinsic noteworthiness does it have? And why should WP have a list of every music video? Furthermore a list is often a collection of articles, i.e. links, but this is just a directory. Punkmorten (talk) 20:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Christian electronic music is Christian music which employs electronic music." Wow! Totally irrelevant intersection. Reads like a directory. Punkmorten (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another self-invented "genre" that fails WP:RS. Just someone who put two things together. Punkmorten (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Contemporary Christian music. Mangojuicetalk 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from any girl group - someone just made up a combination - fails WP:RS. "Christian boy band" was prodded out of existance as early as last year. Punkmorten (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete—The statement which was taken as an admission of the list being arbitrary was placed by the first editor and reads "Because classifying music by genre can be arbitrary, these groupings are generalized and many artists appear on multiple lists." This does seem to be an admission of creating an arbitrary list. The suggested merger is not a doable proposition as that list article is a meta-list, a list-of-lists, and not an item-list which would support in-merger of an item-list. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Self-admitted arbitrary list. Don't be fooled by the reference, as it has nothing to do with this specific subject, really. Punkmorten (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. —Caesura(t) 22:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. —Caesura(t) 19:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simple fan cruft Pharmboy (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 17:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Technically, consensus leaned to "keep". However, I found the delete arguments stronger in this case. Article is over 20 months old, does not have a single WP:RS or WP:V citation in the whole thing, and does not meet the guidelines of WP:FICT. While some participants said they would add citations, as of now, three days past the end date of this AfD, none had been added. If you think I've made a mistake in this decision, please take it to WP:DRV for consideration. Pigman☿ 23:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game and film articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was same old Wikipedia game. DS (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks verifiability and notability. Already exists in the Wikipedia namespace, where it belongs. —Caesura(t) 19:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if it is that popular then people must want to find out about it, theres an article on critisisms of wikipedia, why not the wikipedia game, if this really is an encyclopedia, it need ALL information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakmadik (talk • contribs) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to List of Resident Evil characters. Neil ☎ 13:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was. Delete. Not by !votecounting, but by strength of arguments. The article provides no "non-fictional perspective", no "out-of-universe referencing", no reliable independent sources at all (an online in-universe game guide, a printed version of the same game guide, and a blog text). Fram (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was NO CONSENSUS. Waggers (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Resident Evil video game articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie article. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon and episode articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Near orphan about a questionable "art movement"; unreferenced since September 2006. kingboyk (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this worth keeping around? If it's not even close to complete now, is there any hope of it ever being complete as the real list continues to grow. A similar list for Blue Ray disks has already been deleted. Rtphokie (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is a Secret account 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon articles. This is thus all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, has no reliable independent sources at all. Fram (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page fails to meet WP:BIO. Wrote a couple of unsuccessful screenplays, unknown books, and was an extra a couple of times. Only trivial coverage by secondary sources. —Caesura(t) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by DMacks. closed by non-admin. RMHED (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she satisfies the notability guidelines in WP:BIO. An eating disorder expert, who has had a TV appearance as an expert for a show, published a book, for which she has had interviews in magazines, according to the article. (Better Homes and Gardens, USA Today, amongst others). Two radio appearances. No reliable sources. This is the best I could find in the first 60/245 Google hits. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. non-admin closure SYSS Mouse (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is this photographer notable? This short article has little more than weasel words. Rtphokie (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete with a redirect to Numidia. — Scientizzle 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, near orphan, of Lomar%22&btnG=Search only 800 Google hits. kingboyk (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep / Withdrawn by nominator SkierRMH (talk) 04:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted. WP:SNOW CSD A7 and the fact that the author himself is blanking it. Someone is upset and there's no point in prolonging the agony. Docg 18:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting article, unclear to me whether notable or not.
The article was created by
apparently the bio subject, comprising a self-bio licensed under GFDL. Most of this was "puff", but there did seem to be relevant claims in it that were by their nature verifiable. These included the following statements and claims:
There is an AFD principle that an article on a genuinely notable subject should not be deleted just because it was created as a promotion piece. The above are borderline claims, and made promotionally. Nonetheless if verified there would be a legitimate question whether multiple exhibitions and coverage constitutes sufficient evidence that this is not a "run of the mill" artist. That evidence is not presented (yet); nor (if it was) would I be expert enough to assess these claims in the art world. Hence this AFD listing to examine those questions.
Other relevant Wikipedia policies and practices:
Left to discussion to test evidence, and claims, and judge notability. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. If you wish to pursue the merge discussion, please do so at the talk page. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elder Scrolls Characters: I feel that all the ES Characters collectively are notable enough to get a single page. -Ratwar (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the references, this is a problematic list. It's incomplete and may not be able to satisfy a proper standard of notability. Weak delete, but I think it's good to discuss this. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone marked this for speedy deletion (A7) on Newpages patrol. Since I disagree, I'm nominating it for deletion as a procedural courtesy. No opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep without consensus. Another Afd nom might be fair if done after three more months, if no further sources of any kind are found. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a video game guide. Perhaps the mushroom is iconic enough to be culturally notable; if so, that can be included in Mario (series). However, we do not need and should not have an article describing the gameplay effects of absolutely every incarnation of the Mario mushroom. Chardish (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claims 130+ years of history and 10 million+ water heaters sold... so there might be some notability here. This was a speedy deletion candidate but I am bringing it to AFD for discussion. It feels like a copyvio but I can't tell of what. Needs some sources, otherwise delete W.marsh 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN comedy group Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wrote this page after finding Pappy's fun Club ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappy%27s_Fun_Club ) ,another UK sketch group at a similiar level, but not finding an Idiots of Ants page. Both are up and coming acts so it seems strange that Pappy's Fun Club would be OK and Idiots of Ants not. I am a fan so was extra careful not to publicise them in any way. But if I did I will remove it.
Kind Regards,
Cody
I would argue that both these groups are ‘notably’ if not yet famous. At the Edinburgh Festival they were both big news selling out there venues every night. This means over 5000 people saw them. Add to that the gigs they have done in London and around the UK it must be over 10,000. Certainly not ‘Monty Python’ but a great start none the less.
On top of this both groups have been reviewed and written about in the national press (only yesterday did I see Idiots of Ants the Metro Newspaper) and have both been and national Television and radio.
They both have big internet followings (me amongst them) and think they would be a popular addition to Wikipedia
~~Cody~~
Cody —Preceding unsigned comment added by Codspy (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again,
Codspy (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I entered Idiots of Ants into wikipedia having booked tickets to see them at their Pleasance gig in London at Christmas after having lapped them up at Edinburgh. We bought the tickets the day after seeing them on BBC2's Culture Show. Yet I find that they are nominated for deletion on here?! I cannot understand that. Who decides whether something has a right to be deleted? There are countless examples on Wikipedia of far less notable/successful/famous people/groups/events than the Idiots. Surely that is not the purpose of the volunteer editors on the site? To be arbiters of what is well-known or not? I consider myself cultured and well-read, but I wouldn't dream of stating what was worthy of public consumption on wikipedia on the basis of whether it had entered my sphere of experience or where it rated on my perceived 'fame-o-meter'.
They are a comedy group in the public eye that are known by and have entertained as many people as many of the books, for example, that appear on this site. Those books claim their space, I assume, on the grounds that you could go into any bookstore and pick them up IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR THEM. The same argument exists to defend the Idiots of Ants. If you were looking to see them, you could find them, and the first place you should be able to look is here.
The nomination for deletion is extraordinary and should be removed.
Jessica McIntyne.
The result was Keep. Davewild 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a Lucky Goldstar catalog. This product is not notable; too few substantial references other than reviews are available to support writing a sustainable encyclopedia article. Mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable website for an equally non-notable fringe group. I opted to bring it to AFD rather than speedy due to the references, but even despite the two interview clips I can't see how the website is notable; a Google search turned up many irrelevant hits (mainly relating to the Bible or small bands), and there are no relevant Google News hits, either. Coredesat 17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article quotes no reliable sources to establish notability Mayalld (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the article purports to describe a religious movement that has been around in one shape or form since the mid-1920s. This fact alone seems to make a fairly good prima facie case for notability. Apparently published sources and biographies of church leaders exist in Nigeria, and the article does seek to reference these as well; this literature may be a primary source, but it is a source. And. . . it is interesting reading.
Generally, the fact that sources may be obscure or hard to find in Europe or North America is not grounds to delete anything. The article was created the same day it was nominated. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Deadeye Dick (band). Waggers (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN autobiography Mayalld (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - notability does not expire, and some sources have evidently been found. —Random832 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently non-notable product. - Jehochman Talk 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the source(s) to the article. Also, fer cryin' out loud, it was just created today; give it a chance. -- phoebe/(talk) 19:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete; no consensus about where to merge. If anyone wants to merge it later, request a copy from me :) --Haemo (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Elder Scrolls games. As Wikipedia is not a gameguide, and this is all duplicative, this can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying this isn't near bottom barrel(worthy of deletion) in terms of articles. It basically has one massive flaw, no references, which I admit is a problem, even though this information is on the level. This article shouldn't be deleted, it should be fixed, we shouldn't just quit on it. TostitosAreGross (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Spellcast (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
nn (~750 ghits), written by someone affiliated with it:
(emphasis mine)Today, the Culinary Institute with the Peruvian youths' of highest acceptance, to collaborate with the diffusion of our kitchen and to continue contributing to the development of successful professionals that you highlight in the gastronomic business and they are developed in a successful way in any part of the world.Thank you for your kind preference.
nn, or, coi/npov. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. Davewild (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Insufficient third-party references exist to write a substantial, verifiable, and maintainable WikiPedia article. ((prod)) removed without comment, so listing at AfD.Mikeblas (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has not established notability, which it must to be kept. Judgesurreal777 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be about scripting some sort of game, but it's far more of a reference manual then an actual article. Wikipedia is not a game guide, and that includes a guide to scripting the game. — PyTom (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label. No assertion that any of its artists are notable. I don't see anything here that meets WP:MUSIC. Most if not all Google hits seem to be self-generated advertisement. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because they are related articles:
Dougie WII (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Comment: Despite quite a lot of back and forth and shifting consensus, comparison of the article from when it first came to this AfD and now [22] clearly shows a massively improved article. Pigman☿ 02:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previous AFD closed no consensus and in the intervening months there has been no attempt whatsoever to address the problems. The article remains an indiscriminate collection of unrelated items which have no commonality beyond happening to include the words "Jayne Mansfield" in some capacity. There is no denying that Jayne Mansfield was a pop culture presence. This does not mean that a list of every time someone says "Jayne Mansfield" on TV or in a book is encyclopedic. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a theme. "Someone said 'Jayne Mansfield'" is not a unifying element. Otto4711 (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, these things turn into lists because too many editors are intimidated from using their own brains by overbroad readings of WP:SYN. IMO it would be perfectly acceptable to add running text to the Jayne Mansfield article that uses this material. ("Jayne Mansfield's breasts were made the subject of humor in . . . . (citations to those appearances follow). Her death in an automobile accident is alluded to in a number of books and films, including. . . . (citations follow)"). Any guideline that pretends to prohibit analytical ways of dealing with the material is no guideline at all. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I was asked to come here, so I think voting would be inappropriate) I've witnessed a few "in popular culture" AfD's and normally the ones which get deleted are the lists - the survivors (e.g. this one) are usually rewritten as prose. If you really want this to stay, it'll have to be converted to prose form to boost its chances. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than a single sentence definition and an external link. Rtphokie (talk) 14:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirects are cheap, be bold and try one yourself. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a copy of the article Foundation for Family and Life, created by Verymuch2000 to create a distinction with the mainstream organization Couples for Christ. Click here and here to understand why Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life should only be referred to as Foundation for Family and Life. Jedjuntereal (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. weak delete, given notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. While the consensus here appears to be to keep the article, the keep rationale isn't very strong. I suspect we will wind up back here again if some reliable sources aren't added soon.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Couples for Christ, (closed by non-admin). RMHED (talk) 21:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a copy of the article Couples for Christ, created by Verymuch2000 to create a distinction with the dissident group Foundation for Family and Life (see Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life.) Click here and here to understand why Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life should only be referred to as Foundation for Family and Life. Jedjuntereal (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result wasDelete. The delete comments are based fully upon policy and guideline. The article remains unsourced, thus unverified, despite being almost two years old. -JodyB talk 22:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted as part of a group AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Zero Inc.. DRV determined that the group listing was improper; therefore, this article is relisted individually. Delete, given lack of reliable sources and notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to The Perry Bible Fellowship. James086Talk | Email 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed. Vague and weak assertion of notability, seemingly the only reason it wouldn't qualify for DB-WEB. Only sources are the webcomic/author's site and YTMND (the latter just the site itself, not any specific page). There are also links to some random Internet groups.Drat (Talk) 12:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable "scale" invented by a school cross-country team. Stephenb (Talk) 12:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn / keep. Waggers (talk) 14:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this mod more notable than others? What makes mods notable to begin with? AKFrost (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For those who have objections, I first suggest you look at WP:NOT#PLOT,WP:NOT#GUIDE. Without the game plot and the game mechanics, these mods have little writable information and really can't go any further.AKFrost 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's suggestion: Delete or Merge into one list AKFrost (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it might be a good idea to move these pages to Game info wikia and/or StrategyWiki. AKFrost 18:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of time of writing, I will no longer reply to any comments that says "There is an article that's worse/less notable/less suitable." As Oni Ookami Alfador have kindly pointed out, I've repeated it enough times. Please discuss the merits of the pages only. AKFrost 04:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction Retracting deletion request for Cold War Crisis and ShockWave (video game). However, these articles should still be merged in one list seeing that they don't have enough information (and AFAIK, no more since they aren't stubs) to warrant a full article. AKFrost (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also adding:
*ShockWave (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
For the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AKFrost (talk • contribs) 10:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Previews.Detail&id=36 * August Edition of PC Games Magazine. * August Edition of PC Action Magazine.
It goes without saying that the magazine citations are of questionable relevance because nothing in the article tells us what is pulled from these megazines. I didn't bother reading the column, but it's still problematic to assume reliability on this one post. Can anyone provide more instances of CWC in other forums? I believe WP:N requests for significant coverage. These three sources hardly seem significant if you can't even tell us what it said. I actually disagree with Huon, Shockwave at least put up some semblence of an article with citations, whereas CWC have nothing. AKFrost (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this football player is notable enough for Wikipedia. He plays for Gibraltar, which is a non-recognized national football team, and he scored a goal at the 2007 Island Games. It appears that he's now playing for Harlow Town F.C. in the Isthmian League Premier Division, the 7th level of English club football, but he is not listed in the article's Current Squad section. The only other records I could find of him online were that he played for Manchester United Gibraltar in the 2002-03 season, and that he was named 2002 Young Footballer of the Year in Gibraltar. AecisBrievenbus 10:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as a non-notable joint venture, with only a single good source, which fails to verify its importance. Ample chances to improve the article have failed. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What notability does an agreement between two companies have? It is just an interoperability agreement; thousands of such agreements are there in place. In fact, similar agreements exist between MS and other companies like Cisco et al, and I'm sure even Nortel would have. What has the partnership resulted in? Till now, just an outline of how the interoperability will proceed. Thats suitable for a press release, not an encyclopedia article. soum talk 10:50, 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 merge to Dane Rauschenberg. If you are unsure, still, of Rauschenberg's notability then the solution is to AFD that article. Neil ☎ 11:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet the notability criteria for a website. If notability is to be judged by the underlying task of running 52 marathons on consecutive weekends, at least three other people have done it before. If notability is to be judged on running a number of marathons in a year, other people have run more. Similarly, other people have run more consecutive weekends. Whenever the article is edited to remove NPOV problems, IP address only editors come back and re-add POV in a manner which suggests major WP:COI problems. Any objective reader must question whether this entire matter is about fund-raising or about self-generating publicity. The external references are not hard news coverage, but rather non-discriminating media reflecting the numerous press releases that are described in the article. If every runner posted a wikitable with his/her past races, Wikipedia would be overwhelmed with non-notable data. The posting of finishing place without stating the size of the total field is misleading and POV, and efforts to add the total field sizes to the table meet with repeated deletion by the WP:COI contributors. In short, this is an ego trip rather than a serious article and does not meet any standard of notability. Xcstar (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep but add references. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable genre. Sometimes grand strategy is mentioned in the context of other strategy games, but not enough to qualify it as a unique genre. Violates 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomran (talk • contribs) 07:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a real genre. Made up genres will violate 1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization
The result was merge with Breakout clones. Done. Neil ☎ 11:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: not notable, 2: original research, 3: overcategorization
The result was Delete all. — Scientizzle 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional characters from Shortland Street with no sign of real world notability. Pak21 (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating for the same reason:
The result was keep. Neil ☎ 11:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional location from a game guide has no real-world context or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the Greyhawk canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Brightcove. Was speedied six times under WP:CSD#G11, as spam advertising. Has a many links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions including 63 self references to sites owned by Brightcove. 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.Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article.
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article asserts notability, but unsourced, and unable to find independent evidence of the author or any of his works. Seems to be non-notable Mayalld (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 07:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Tetcos. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematician and physicist of unknown notability. A Google search for <McCanney "dipole red shift"> suggests that his work is mostly discussed only in Internet forums and his own website. [31] The only cited references are self-written articles and a biography from his own site. Thus fails WP:BIO due to lack of multiple independent sources that mention him in detail. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to establish WP:N as either a DJ or a musician. Torc2 (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, for the love of God, delete this crap. Never wanted it here, and it's just become a flame farm. Good riddance. -- Mark Scudder —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.185.163 (talk) 05:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stx16gn and 66.162.225.68 made a number of edits to this article, gushing about Ms. Engber. Ordinarily, I would just remove those statements to make the article more balanced, but as it is, the article doesn't seem to make a good case for notability. Many significant assertions go unsourced, and the few sources that are provided are unconvincing. For instance, a "Donor Honor Roll" is provided as evidence that she is "on a plateau of feminist writers and teachers". (Disclosure: She was my high school English teacher, but this deletion nomination has nothing to do with that.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a hoax Captain Smartass (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 06:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely a hoax "...performed open heart surgery at age 5..." VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 04:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge & redirect. — Scientizzle 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, while his band affiliation appears to be somewhat notable, he himself for his music and guitar work don't appear to be notable enough for inclusion. When checking, I see on one search, and another search that he doesn't seem to meet our needs for independent coverage. That is a Google news archive search; and note the many duplicate articles. Recommend delete for now. • Lawrence Cohen 19:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable seminar. Zero sources satisfying WP:RS attached ot the article. A quick google search [32] yields nothing notable. meshach (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for speedy for no assertion of notability. I don't think it quite meets that criteria, but there are clearly notability questions as well as the article being autobiographical CitiCat ♫ 04:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Supressão (For the Portuguese authorities ;) per WP:SNOW— Preceding unsigned comment added by SkierRMH (talk • contribs)
No evidence this person exists, just a rambling conspiracy theory. Dougie WII (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio and redirect to Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2#Yu Yevon. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information already exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yu_Yevon#Yu_Yevon Oopsadoodle (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep based on improvements and something of a nomination withdrawl. — Scientizzle 23:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former mall in Florida, fails WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete since the lack of reliable sources has not been overcome.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article on a programmer which is, on closer look, a blatant autobiography by the subject. Most of the information is admitted to be "from the subject" and hence unverifiable. And as I detailed on the talk page:
I am afraid I just do not see any notability (according to our guideline) here. This article comes the closest to such an assertion, but from this article we know only that Caldwell is the CTO of a (former) tech company.
Searching Google for keywords relating to this person's various claims to notability yield sorry results:
Although this person has written articles that appeared in at least one major magazine [37], the threshold of notability is that there are multiple reliable and independent sources that write about the subject in detail. The subject of this article, on closer inspection, falls well short of this threshold. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have noticed Juggs is doing this to a lot of futurama articles. I don't know what to make of that - this article has appeared in more episode of Futurama then the USAF Prometheus has in Stargate, and the Prometheus can keep it's page. One of many precidents that has been set - 202.10.80.69 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Futurama. I will merely redirect and leave merging to those interested. Mangojuicetalk 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not notable, and has no references to verify its contents. As such, it is just an in-universe repetition of various plot facts from Futurama episode articles, and is totally duplicative of those articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about a fictional government from the Television show Futurama, and it asserts no notability with reliable out of universe sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from the various episodes that is entirely duplicative and unencyclopedic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Oxymoron83 09:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The road in question is not notable in any way. The Circle Drive article itself also contains no usefull information, merely stating that the southwestern portion of the road is part of the Yellowhead Highway. Circle Drive does not need a Wikipedia article.--CP 61 (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Originally ((prod))ed, author removed; may not meet notability requirements for groups and organizations nor notability requirements for musicians and ensembles; does not cite reliable, independent secondary sources, potential conflict of interest. slakr\ talk / 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a game guide, and besides that, this article is an in-universe repetition of plot and setting elements from the various Mortal Kombat game movie and book articles. As such, it is purely duplicative and has no encyclopedic content. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Totally non-notable group. Ridernyc (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It appears an extensive and very good faith effort has been made to find WP:RS and WP:V without success. Sources currently in the article are all tied to the official site (except download figures) and most apparently authored by the creators. The notability of Little Fighter Online does not confer notability to this title. Because of the lack of sources, merging info into that article does not seem a good idea. Pigman☿ 06:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not fulfill WP:N (specifically WP:SOFTWARE). The article is not listed for speedy deletion, as the current version is sufficiently different from the version that underwent the last AfD. Despite this, there has been no change in the subject or available sources. I personally have re-written the article and researched the subject, but the only sources I can find are primary sources, mostly from the game's official site. The title exists in game databases such as GameFAQs, IGN and Home of the Underdogs, but none of these have any content that can be used to establish notability. Several possible sources have been put forward in the article's discussion page, but none of them are reliable sources. The only professional source provided is the same Download.com download figure, which does not establish notability by itself. Scottie_theNerd 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Abrogo (delete) (the Latin citations were a traditional "dummy" typesetting text & comedy/tragedy play by Rev. Jacob Masen, SJ) SkierRMH (talk) 08:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax article. No real sources can be found for this "disease". None of the references given have any relevance to the subject. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
procedural nomination—This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD on 2007-09-02. It was subsequently re-created 2007-10-27 with the (partial) edit summary "Needed for comprehensive view of 2006 Gubernatorial Election". The first PROD reason: "failed political candidate"; the second PROD reason: "Non otable (sic) failed political cadidate". Both first and second PROD were applied by the same editor. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND, 1 release on a label and no evidence of meeting any other criteria there; sourced to myspace and the record label. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Tikiwont 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod for an album to be released on January 29, 2008 Seems to fail notability. WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. — Scientizzle 16:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an insufficient amount of independent reliable source material for this topic. The topic is not notable -- Jreferee t/c 02:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT and WP:V, this article is an unsourced indiscriminate list of phrases from Virgin Islands Creole; there is no criterion for exclusion as long as the phrase belongs to that language. Furthermore, as the article's creator says in this edit summary and my talk page, there may not be any resources that can verify lists of phrases for Virgin Islands Creole. Also, while there are pages like list of French phrases and list of Latin phrases, Virgin Islands Creole is not notable enough to have its own page of phrases Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "Virgin Islands Creole is not notable enough to have its own page of phrases"? Who determines what is notable? Why the bias? Also, this is not a prescriptive guide for "prospective speakers of such languages." Anglophone Caribbean creoles are usually only spoken by the native people of such Caribbean islands and can never be learned from reading a prescriptive guide. Vgmaster 22 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgmaster (talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. --- RockMFR 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not one citation for this term, which might be made up, and no assertion of notability. The article appears to be a synthesis of gameplay elements from various games to make its point. It was nominated for deletion before, and is no more notable now than it was then. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*: This statement may sound impossibile. I hasten to add that I've also complimented a woman's breasts and not been taken as having an ulterior motive, and gotten hammered out of altruism. Doing the impossible is kind of fun.
The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferebced short stub on a superecentenarian, containing nothing which could not be included in a 1-line list entry. Had been merged by me ([42], [43]) to the List of British supercentenarians, but restored[44] without comment and without improvement. There is problem at all with having articles on extremely old people if they meet WP:BIO (see e.g. Katherine Plunket or Jerzy Pajaczkowski-Dydynski), longevity is no justification for recreating unreferenced stubs which say nothing more can be conveyed in a list entry and for whom notability is not established. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on person claimed to have been the oldest in the world. Notability not established per WP:BIO; there are no refs to WP:RS reliable sources, let alone substantive ones to establish notability. This stub had been merged by me to List of British supercentenarians (see [45] and [46]]), but was subsequently unmerged without comment and without improvement. There is nothing in the article which could not be accommodated in a list, with a footnote to the effect that she "attributed her longevity to some whisky a day". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, seems to be a clear consensus here. This closure is no reflection of my own !vote in it, but rather a reflection of the general consensus among other !votes. The discussion has been active for three days now, so I see no harm in closing it. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mall seems to fail notability criteria. Only claim to anything in the article is the fact that this mall siphoned five stores off of another shopping center. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep reworked and renamed article, One Australia policy. --Fang Aili talk 18:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN RENAMED, AND IS NOW TITLED: One Australia policy.
An POV fork of John Howard that reflects a very narrow view of the subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Mattinbgn\talk 00:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To follow up from the nomination, the article title is grossly misleading as it barely mentions policy at all but is more a list of Howard's utterances on race and includes other's subjective opinions of Howard's views on race. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(The following comment is from the founding editor)
Article rework, renamed One Australia policy The title has been changed to the less controversial One Australia policy, as this was the title of the policy chosen by John Howard himself. The article is a sincere attempt to document this policy from way back in 1988-1989, and the article has been limited to look at this period alone. Most of the politicians from that era are now out of politics, with the exception of Philip Ruddock, who was a major dissenter and voiced his objection to the policy. Some aspects of the article have previously existed in the John Howard biography, however, having a separate article allows for more scope and the inclusion of other Coalition members' involvement and quotes. Once again, all sentences are meticulously cited. I ask all editors to give the article a fresh appraisal, and to think of the historical importance of these events, almost 20 years ago. Thanks, Lester 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Neil ☎ 10:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established per WP:BIO. One article of a few hundred words in a local paper, two refs in non-WP:RS sources, and nothing much to say about her other than that she is old and eats egg sandwiches. Article has been merged into List of British supercentenarians#Florrie_Baldwin, but has been unmerged, without improved references. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Dltd SkierRMH (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a article that had a prod placed on it, but was removed by the author. I believe it should be deleted because Wikipedia is not for Neologisms. Icestorm815 (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete SkierRMH (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant neologism. Has applicability to only one locale. Contested prod. eaolson (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Acalamari 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, unsubstantiated if not questionable notability. Article seems to contradict itself (both boy band and girl group) Dougie WII (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G7 (author requests deletion), deletion made by User:Edgar181, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability and very existence of "Madness Studios" is questionable, WP:CRYSTAL. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Oxymoron83 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a barely notable committee within a somewhat notable organisation. Anything that can be said about this committee should be said in the article about U.S.S. Proton, but that doesn't exist. AecisBrievenbus 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User talk:202.76.162.34
The result was No consensus. — Scientizzle 20:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that has no sources to prove existence. Will (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted (by another admin). kingboyk (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Little to no assertions of notability. No sources provided. External links section dominated by Youtube and Myspace. kingboyk (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]