< October 20 | October 22 > |
---|
The result was Speedy Keep. The version nominated for deletion is a vandal's revision. the_undertow talk 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ben sounds like a wonderful fellow. Perhaps a bit too wonderful. :) James52 01:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax.
Blatant hoax by a contributor with a proven record of hoax articles using various sock puppets; all hoaxes related to "Edmund/Edwmnd/Ed Puw/Pugh", "Bro Rhydderch" etc, the most recent being Mount Edmund, now tagged for deletion Enaidmawr 00:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Former speedy deletion candidate, I removed the corresponding tag as I felt the article had some factual notability. In any case, I'd rather to let you discuss about the article notability. I am neutral about the issue. Angelo 00:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence presented of notability, or any sources, reliable or otherwise. First AfD seems to have been treated largely as a vote, with no real arguments in favor of keeping put forward. — Swpbtalk.edits 23:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 11:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 23:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 21:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What next: separate articles for sandwiches with every type of filling? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Okay, okay, I give in! The consensus seems to be that it's worth keeping and I'm admitting defeat. I don't know if I can 'call' a closure and a keep (I'm not an admin) so I'll leave that to someone with the buttons. Amusing discussion and edit summaries though! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 14:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without comment. No reliable sources, appears to fail WP:BIO. Evb-wiki 22:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 22:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete this article as it is a genuine artcle. The movie has finished it production and ready for release on Nov30th. Please find the link for the audio review at http://www.rediff.com/movies/2007/oct/22sila.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.4.199 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable politician. Being a mere candidate for election is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia and no evidence of notability outside his candidature is asserted. Mattinbgn\talk 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected.. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 05:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are no independent, significant sources for this term. Mentions do not exist outside PR on behalf of those imprisoned. We can't presume that the term will become notable. John Nevard 22:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the consensus is to merge, should I be bold and do just that? Lossenelin 19:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax with no GHits. PROD removed with no reason given or changes made to article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 22:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DeleteJForget 23:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a highway that is merely proposed at the moment. The article does not say who is proposing to build the highway and when it is likely to be built. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no evidence provided to support any of the claims made in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 22:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to establish notability. Actually, it barely seems to establish what it is, eve after I stubbified it to try and find some form of notability. Wizardman 22:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into iPod . Bearian 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for a legit article Malan8901 21:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Article is not about ipod but about other electronics devices which support iPod docking. this article thus does not come under Apple iPod (iPod dock are not made by Apple). Rather this article need expention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.118.108.254 (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable local radio host. No relible sources. STORMTRACKER 94 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was a keep, per below, and per the subject passing WP:N requirements for people. • Lawrence Cohen 13:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion as when it was placed for speedy deletion, that tag was removed, my reason is article indicates that he is notable for just competing in Gumball 3000 and some illegal runs across the US and very little else. Moosato Cowabata 21:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.185.162 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax.
The whole page is a total fabrication; no such place exists ras52 21:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 11:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confessed speculative nomination - I cannot make out whether this is a hoax, (though the topic is real enough), OR, nonsense ... or a really useful article. Any mathematical Wikipedians want to look it over? Springnuts 21:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Gnangarra 07:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of information nor a directory. Hundreds of thousands of people have died due to volcanic eruptions in modern and ancient times which would make the page unfeasibly long - yet this page gets around that problem by listing six. Oddly even though only six people are listed the page is completely unsourced - which although not in itself a reason for deletion is an additional problem. Another problem is the title of the page which includes not only people by animals, plants and anything else killed by a volcano under its remit. How many dinosaurs have to be listed? Guest9999 20:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails future film notability guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola 20:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails future films notability guidelines per WP:NF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet future film notability per WP:NF. Girolamo Savonarola 20:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete and salt the earth. Anyone wishing to recreate Rosster in good faith are welcome at WP:DRV. MaxSem 20:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably a hoax. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/85.189.82.128 for backup detail. The latest sock User:Paulnockers was recently blocked for vandalism. Seems to be an continued attempt by some hoaxters (one hoaxter?) or some meatpuppets to perpetuate this fiction. Regardless of that, even if the sources were verifiable, the article failes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Into The Fray T/C 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Anthøny 14:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable perpetual candidate. Sliposlop 19:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Drcampbell 12:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could go on to describe his contributions to the Kalamazoo music scene in the 1980's but that would contain original research.--Kzooman 15:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Difficulty un exhuming articles from major papers, long after the fact, does not mean they don’t exist. Many major publications stop providing free online access to articles after only a couple of weeks. There may be far more such articles published without them being accessible. The fact that some articles can be located by reliable third parties ( such as the Lansing City Pulse (Berg, Erica. "A ‘different’ state board may await winners", Lansing City Pulse, October 2, 2002.)[ http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/021030/votersguide/boardofed.html], is an indicator (I know Michigan’s capital is a small town, that is beside the point. Many publications are circulated beyond the city limits of the city after which they are named. Ever see a New York Times outside of New York?). Other examples I was able to locate readily (that remain available) are:
The result was Nomination withdrawn per the snowball clause - apparently the author in question has many reviews in notable newspapers, though they are from several years ago and did not show up in the first few pages of a Google search. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 20:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer. Though notability is asserted (no speedy allowed here), they do not meet the notability guidelines - no hits on Google News, and most Google hits are pages about her books (from her publisher), not the author herself. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus. Anthøny 08:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC). Having reconsidered, following a request from an interested Wikipedian, the arguments put forward by each party in this discussion, I retract my original decision and close this debate as Delete, without prejudice to review. I apologise to any parties for any disruption my previous closure caused, as well as making this mistake - we all do it once in a while, but nevertheless it should not have happened. Anthøny 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced article on a blogging neologism, deletion requested by an anon at my talk page. No independent sources, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator, defaulting to keep. —Kurykh 02:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bus lines, unless there is a distinctive quality that makes it distinguished among all bus lines in the world, are non-notable. This bus line has no distinctive quality, and most of the encyclopedic information is related more to the B Geary line than to the bus line itself. The entry at List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines is sufficient. Hence, as nominator, I urge to delete the article. Kurykh 18:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A fan wiki for Halo. Sources: the wiki, PRweb, and a press story which mentions it so briefly it doesn't even have the name. Merged once, deleted once by previous AfDs. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted as having no assertion of notability per WP:CSD#A7. Neil ☎ 12:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial and the subject doesn't meet any notability requirements - she died a tragic death in a terrorist attack. Jayran 17:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite small number of contributors (3:1 including nom), logic of nomination and "delete" views is sound.
Wikipedia is not a directory nor a travel guide Furthermore, a category "Hotels in Malaysia" already exists. Tomj 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 23:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing this from prod to AFD, because it's already been nominated for AFD once, and I think it should get more attention here. No vote. Ral315 » 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. the_undertow talk 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced WP:OR article, if the concept is notable and encyclopedic, it's better the article were started from scratch based on WP:RSes not the article author's observations and opinions. Carlossuarez46 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is unnecessary. All the relevant information is already covered in Total Nonstop Action Wrestling roster and List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling alumni. We purged a few other lists similar to this one over the summer (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of WWE Divas) - DrWarpMind 17:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. The article is written like spam, and this Google search yields only the company's own website. — Wenli (reply here) 17:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was qualified keep. Unlike its counterpart List of amateur radio emergency service groups, this article is not entirely made up of external links. However it is clear from the discussion that it is expected that external links should replaced by external links - the format should be along the lines of List of amateur radio organizations/Internal link version but without external links alongside each entry. Where possible a short stub detailing why the organization is notable should be created. WP:NOT#LINK is policy and cannot be overriden simply because editors find it incovenient. A stubs and lists with many redlinks are fine (Wikipedia is a work in progress), but link farms are not. WjBscribe 00:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has survived a previous AFD; See (previous AFD). Needless to say, consensus back then cannot overule core wikipedia policies on external links and what wikipedia is all about. The subject of the current article runs contrary to WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#DIR. Plus, this page will not be complete. Instead of maintaining this page, create articles on notable amateur radio organizations and categorize them. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects: [13] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - those advocating that the article be kept have failed to address the fundamental problem that it consists merely of a collection of external links. WjBscribe 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a collection of external links. As per our policy on external links and what wikipedia is not: WP:NOT#LINK it serves little encyclopedic value. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the closing admin: Voting may be influenced by posts to the relevant wikiprojects: [14] =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable bio which doesn't meet WP:BIO. 18 G-hits on his full name "Rajan Kailasanathan", none of which were WP:RS. Many more hits on the article title name "Rajan K" but that's to be expected with a first name and initial. Pigman 17:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete under A7 and G11 rather than any consensus below. Eluchil404 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
record label that fails to establish notability Lugnuts 17:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 11:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
procedural nomination Previously considered at AFD under another name. Proposed for deletion by User:Keb25—nominator's reasoning: "No third-party references, no claim of notability." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, and no consensus to merge and/or redirect. If you wish for this article to be merged/redirected still, please propose it editorially. Daniel 05:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked it for deletion because it's about a game that already has 2 sub-articles to it. It is un-monitored and un-edited for a long time and tehre is only 1 thing in the discussion page that offers a suggestion for it's deletion. url: www.freelancebusinessman.com 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 11:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not an encyclopedic article at all. I would speedy it but can't find one that quite fit the bill. Perhaps a snowball delete will get rid of it speedily. Malcolmxl5 16:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to Peel Engineering Company, without prejudice to recreation. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence in the page that the subject meets the notability criteria, the article is not written from a neutral point of view and the page seems little more than an advertisment. Guest9999 15:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted by User:RyanGerbil10. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal ball - no google hits to show product even exists; prod removed without explanation NeilN 15:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. -- Longhair\talk 06:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article assets no notability. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:CORP. Might be worth a mention in the locality article. Twenty Years 15:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. It's a better article now, though still a bit thin on sourcing. No consensus to delete.--Kubigula (talk) 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a short lived gothic rock band, which, according to my Googling, shares the name of a slightly more notable metal band that was also active during the early eighties. This band was defunct before the days of Internet ezines, and, as such, I can find nothing close to a decent source about it. Delete, unless decent sources are found. J Milburn 14:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus.
Closer's notes
Although if you count heads there's more people wanting deletion, many were "per X"; on the flipside, a number of detailed and policy-based arguments were made by people wanting the article kept, and they weren't adequately addressed in responses throughout this discussion. The argument countering "indiscriminate" - being Wikipedia notability - was not addressed sufficiently by throwing about Wikipedia:Listcruft, and claiming it is unmaintainable.
These two factors mean that, in reading this debate, I find that there is no consensus to delete the article. As GRBerry correctly notes, you are free to renominate this article if no-one fufills the faith shown by people wanting to keep the article ("If no one is going to do these things [a short indication of why each individual is notable (and) a citation to a reliable source indicating that the individual is an Ashkenazi Jew], categorization might be the right end result"), but please give ample time. However, for now, the people expressing opinions for this article to be kept have made a sufficient case that a quality list with references and clear bounds of notability should belong on Wikipedia and falls within our policies and guidelines. Daniel 05:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This list if completed would amount to a list of approximately 9,000,000 names - making it completely impractical. Should articles really be used to catagorise every person in the world by their religeous background? This could be a catagory but there is really just no need for an article. Wikipedia is not a directory and this articles and many others like it are incomplete (with no real possibility of completion), unneccessary and unencylopaedic. How do you even use an article like this - effectively it is just a giant trivia section so people can go "Oh, I didn't know that (he/she) was..." if people actually want to know the status of particular people they can easily check the individual articles. As I said I realise their are many other articles like this but WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good arguement for inclusion. Guest9999 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep especially as the discussion progressed. Bearian 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline A7 but looks like another admin had already seen this and left it alone. Article doesn't demonstrate any notability for this website and lacks reliable sources. Content can therefore be considered original research Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowball speedy delete. J Milburn 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this article is either a complete fictional article or some kind of personal vanity project about a 17 year old kid. Has no notability, no verifiability or anything else that'd make it suitable for Wikipedia of any kind. Only really edited by one single guy. MPJ-DK 14:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. There is a clear consensus that clubs of this level are not inherently notable (though some are for various reasons). Eluchil404 09:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable English non-league football club. Level 10 has become the accepted view for notability of such clubs through numerous AFD's, and Littleton have never played at that level or higher. In addition, they seem to hold no other reason for notability - they are a local village team with no significant coverage in third party sources. fchd 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Fails WP:N. Completely unverifiable due to lack of references, no non-wikipedia hits in Google, Google scholar or Google books. Probably should be speedy-delete, but I wasn't sure. BelovedFreak 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP of a NN author, autobiography Toddstreat1 13:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band. Google hits are unreliable or extremely trivial mentions (one track on a compilation album, appearance at a gig, or very minor stories that the band has got back together of questionable reliability anyway). They appear to be unsigned, and although the article claims they had a track on the Underworld: Evolution soundtrack, this is nothing on its own. Also, they are linked to from sludge metal, but until I cleared it about an hour ago, there were nearly as many redlinks as there are blue links, so that counts for nothing. J Milburn 13:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete while WP:POV is not a reason for deletion, articles in this position should be tagged for cleanup. In this case the question of notability was raised and remains unaddressed, article is deleted without prejudice. I'd be happy to restore if notability is addressed. Gnangarra 07:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this fails WP:POV. I doubt there is anything notable about this phone that would warrant its own article. ARendedWinter 13:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable radio show. The only third party sources thrown up by Google are trivial, and the article reads like an advert. J Milburn 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nuke from high orbit. —[[Animum | talk]] 16:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:N and WP:V No hits at all on a google test. Martijn Hoekstra 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. -- Longhair\talk 11:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basicly Wikipedia is not a directory, this seems more like a catagory. If any Istanbul htoel that can verify its existance should be mentioned the page could possibly grow out of control. Guest9999 12:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article List of hotels in Istanbul has been moved to Hotels in Istanbul.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged as needing a merge into sludge metal, however, it is completely unsourced. Although a few bands do seem to be widely considered as 'sludgecore', I can find no sources that actually talk about it as a genre. Google throws up unreliable sources, or minor bands being described as it. As such, I believe the article should be deleted, until reliable sources can be found. J Milburn 12:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and there's already a perfectly good article on BASIC, but the prod was still removed. Shall we go through the motions for a bit? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep because: no reason given for deletion by nominator; no response to note on talkpage. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing an incomplete nomination. As such, I abstain. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 12:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks significant Johnbibby 15:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jbeach sup 23:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical article on an internet personality (founder of a website, Wikimapia), which has sat without any references to independent sources for a year. COI problems, since the main contributors have been the subject himself and another wikipedian who is also an active member of Wikimapia. He has argued that as the founder of a large website A.K. is notable "by definition" (even "on a par with Jimmy Wales"), but requests for providing independent sources of biographical coverage in the media have gone unanswered. The only reference so far is to the FAQ page of A.K.'s own website. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted by User:Neil. Non-admin closure. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 18:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unremarkable product Nunquam Dormio 08:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft. J Milburn 11:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The links are duplicated in the Canine disambiguation page 12Ghost12 07:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sources still need to be improved. Bearian 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:MUSIC, no WP:RS, discogs only lists 1 CD release. Leuko 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no clear outcome, given the page-moves and other actions which go part of the way to addressing the nominators' concerns. If you think the newly-located article still should be discussed for deletion, feel free to renominate at your leisure. However, this debate yielded nothing close to consensus to delete due to the discussion being sidetracked and the 'boundaries' moving frequently. Daniel 05:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not cite any notability and an indiscriminate list of information lacking any reason for being cited in an encyclopedia. There are no outside sources, everything is coming from the schools cite and the listing of departments is indiscrimate listing of info. Also breaks the rule on subpages, see #3 of Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed uses.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on...don't delete yet I'm working on it... lol give me some time. I'm only saving the page because Wikipedia keeps logging me out every time I finish a section and I click "Preview". I'm improving the structure of the Florida Institute of Technology page (WikiProject: Universities) by splitting the different pages off so that the main article does not overflow 32kb (It's already at 30kb). Please let me know if you still want to delete this page. Notability and some of the other kinks will be fixed tonight. Jameson L. Tai 07:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article Moved to List of Florida Institute of Technology Colleges and Laboratories. Hopefully this will resolve the AfD request. Instead of mentioning each and individual college per article, the new article now lists all of the colleges and labs for Florida Institute of Technology, thus solving the Notability issues. Jameson L. Tai 11:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge. Since there are two users who appear to be actively working out the details that will save me the work of trying to do the merge myself, right? I'm okay with that... — Scientizzle 15:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems redundant to List of premiers of British Columbia - rather than outright deletion, I'd suggest merging the two together at one title or the other (probably List of premiers of British Columbia) and making the other a redirect. No sense in having two articles that basically list the same information. Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, keep. -- RG2 02:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely redundant to 1925 French Championships - Men's Singles and 1925 French Championships - Women's Singles. We have one of these articles for every year, and each one is identical bar the names. In each case we have articles on the competition, the "list of champions of the 19xx French Championships" articles all contain exactly four names, of which two are champions and two are not. And the way it's worded you actually have to click through to work out whether "defeated" means "A defeated B" or A (defeated) vs. B. A list which can only have two members, or four if you include the defeated non-champion, is not really much of a list. Why do we need three articles on each year's championship? Cruftbane 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. But I'm going to move "articles" to "topics." -- RG2 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article lists other Wikipedia articles. This is what categories are for, and in fact there is already an Ayyavazhi category. Sfacets 05:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply - there is already a [[Category:Ayyavazhi]] category regrouping the articles. Sfacets 14:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See all religions have similar lists for their own,
- PaulRaj 17:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- RG2 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not pass WP:BIO. The only English source for his existence is a post on the World's Oldest People forum (see Oldest people for the link) and of the few Ghits, most, if not all, are mirrors and none contain any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in List of living supercentenarians and Oldest people. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present at the list of living supercentenarians and oldest people. Cheers, CP 17:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
Comment These articles are no less informative than Augusto Moreira de Oliveira's is or Sukesaburo Nakanishi's was. Also for Okumura, he is about to turn 111, which is notable, since when Emiliano Mercado died, only Tomoji Tanabe was that age. Captain celery 19:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like fancruft/listcruft. We don't need this much information on locations for a video game. Wizardman 05:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria A7 for not claiming notability. It is an open source software product. The speedy tag was on for some considerable time with no admin either removing it or deleting the article, so the issue of the notability is evidently not a simple one. No vote from me. Sam Blacketer 18:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by AA. J Milburn 11:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Company founded just last month with no current independent sources to demonstrate notability. Only 4 Google hits for the name of the website and whilst Google is far from the final word, this is exceptionally low, especially for a web based company. Additionally, the article was created by User:Freshbargains so we can presume a confict of interest which whilst not a reason for deletion, is suggestive of astroturfing. CIreland 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. If this is a truly notable conlang, then one or more of the peer-reviewed linguistics journals should have articles about it, which would obviously satisfy WP:V & WP:RS. — Caknuck 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the DRV,, consensus was to relist. Previous AfD was closed early. Neutral nomination; needs reliable sources for verification to keep. Chick Bowen 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Delete I do not read any newspapers or magazines, thus there are no so notable ones. You should keep all or delete all. I do not read wikis either so maybe you delete yourself also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.12.50 (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable person; no sources. Most of the article is actually an essay on the music business. Prods removed by author. Brianyoumans 03:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about apparently non-notable online game, probably created for advertising purposes. Most of the article is little more than in-game statistics, which violates Wikipedia's policy on writing about computer games. The overall article probably violates WP:NOT in more than one area. Terraxos 03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable (possibly non-existent) person. A Google search yields zero results. — Wenli (reply here) 03:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
notability based on his tennis far inadequate Mayumashu 03:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
}
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Craig Paterson, bioethicist. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, non notable football/soccer player. In the original prod tag, I stated that there were "Only 5 Google hits, two of which are from Wikipedia", but on closer inspection of the results, there are only three distinct sites: one is Wikipedia, the third is a Wikipedia mirror, and the second appears to be either an indiscriminate list of Swedish footballers, or an indiscriminate list of Swedish people. The tag was removed by the article's creator, with the edit summary "well-known footballer in sweden", but I can't seem to find any proof of this. Dreaded Walrus t c 02:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Gnangarra 06:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article for a minor fictional character with very few information. All usefull info can be merged in List of Gears of War characters & adversaries as a user suggested some months ago (merge tag is still there and nobody removed it). The article can be replaced with a simple redirect or deleted. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Santiago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Baird --Magioladitis 02:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both articles. Eluchil404 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished book by non-notable author. Also nominating:
which is about a character in this book. Articles by the same editor about the author and another character were A7 speedied and linkspam in the Drow article was reverted. Prod tags were removed without explanation by an anon IP whose only contributions have been to the same set of articles. --Finngall talk 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. -- RG2 02:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article for a minor fictional character with very few information. All usefull info can be merged in List of Gears of War characters & adversaries as a user suggested some months ago (merge tag is still there and nobody removed it). The article can be replaced with a simple redirect or deleted. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Santiago and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Augustus Cole -- Magioladitis 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. -- RG2 02:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that this page is redundant -- all content is covered by Influenza or by other pages in Category:Influenza. Yeah, I know that Google returns 84 gazillion hits for a search of "human flu", but I'll bet that most of those are CDC or NIH which is (IMO) awful for consistent clarity. —G716 <T·C> 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Portal (video game). —Verrai 01:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Character is from single, short game, all in-universe, needs to not have a separate page MASEM 02:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by me, as a copyvio of this page. I hate to see an article about a possibly notable band (especially a metal band) go down, so if someone wants to recreate as a non copyvio with reliable sources, be my guest. J Milburn 12:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music) Hirolovesswords 01:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, without prejudice against recreation in an improved form. I thought long and hard about relisting this debate to get a clearer result. In the end, however, I felt that the overall weight of the arguments given so far leans just enough on the side of deletion for me to close it as such. Please contact me (or another admin) if you'd like the current content userfied. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This strange page suffers from two major problems; it is written by someone who doesn't speak much English, and from what I can make out, is an attempt to promote a (very) new treatment for preemies with lung problems. So it has a certain original research flavor, a spam flavor (mmm, spam) and of course, it has notability problems. I will put a line or two about it in Infant respiratory distress syndrome where it belongs, so please don't vote for merge. SolidPlaid 01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RG2 (talk • contribs)
I should probably speedy this but there seems too much assertion of notability in the article to do so. The first page of 50 G-hits didn't have much in the way of WP:RS but there were about 850 hits total. It doesn't help that the only seemingly legit source in the article (the interview) appears to be in Farsi (not sure?) which I'm totally at sea with. Pigman 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability, article is original research. The references for this article consist entirely of links to Bible verses in various languages, which do nothing to establish the notability of the name "Ghayyour." The article states that the word is a translation of the words jealous and zealot into Urdu, Persian and Arabic. That very well may be, but this still does not establish its notability as a word for an English language article. A Google search [23] for the word turns up many links to discussion/guestbook posts by the author of this article (Rana Ghayyour Ahmed) but nothing about any notable people who share the name. Besides, "Ghayyur" appears from this search to be the more common spelling. There are Wikipedia articles about certain names (Such as Chen (surname)), but there is no evidence that this name is notable enough to have its own article. At present, Wikipedia has no articles about anyone named by the more common Ghayyur variant [24], which would indicate that it is not a common enough name to have its own article. The only articles about Ghayyour are this one, and another one about a non-notable person (See this AfD), both authored by the same editor, User:Ghayyour. Nick Graves 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow Delete. Hoax + MySpace = not too cool. the_undertow talk 01:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely unreferenced, and concerns an apparently non-notable church. John254 00:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Serious Encyclopedia????? When has Wikipedia ever been considered a serious encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.80.192 (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an advert. But I'm fairly sure this event is non-notable. Pigman 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--JForget 23:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It survived an afd a couple months ago and it was pretty much only the result of a trainwreck group of noms. It's pure 100% listcruft, with no sources whatsoever. It clearly fails the notability guidelines as no reason as to why The Simpsons traveling to a certain place is notable. Scorpion0422 00:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. -- RG2 11:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article for a minor fictional character with very few information. All usefull info can be merged in List of Gears of War characters & adversaries as a user suggested a year ago (merge tag is still there and nobody removed it). The article can be replaced with a simple redirect or deleted.Magioladitis 00:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is non-notable. Article asserts notability as having appeared as a legal commentator on several news shows, and having appeared on a reality TV show that got cancelled after two weeks. The only evidence offered for notability is a link to the subject's personal web page (which does not mention any TV appearances), and a bogus link to the subject's supposed IMDb page (which is actually just the subject's personal site again--IMDb does not have an article for this person [25]). A Google search [26] showed plenty of online discussion/guestbook posts by the subject, but nothing to indicate notability. An article about the reality TV show on which subject supposedly appeared does not mention him. Two previous articles on this subject were deleted [27] per CSD A7. The creator of the article has the same name as subject--they seem likely to be the same person. Nick Graves 00:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete as this hoax doesn't have a snowball's chance. the_undertow talk 01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax or non-notable. Neutralitytalk 00:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait on Deletion I added a citation from a third-party website, plus I added quotes about Daniel King from other ministers who have articles on Wikipedia. Is that enough to save this article from deletion or should I look for more citations?
Delete no 3rd party sources for this evangelist. Claims of authoring best-selling books saved this from speedy, but doing a little searching on Amazon, none of these books are there, except for "The Power of the Seed" which was written by someone else and ranks down below 3,000,000 in sales at Amazon. [28]. Fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An assertion of notability has been made, but I could not find any reliable sources to back up those claims. I can't find any biographical details (besides the listing of what he does, where he works, etc.) on Google. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Kubigula (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no sources Will (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 00:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 00:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It says on their official website that they plan this album... also, why would there be an Exhibit A if there isn't at least Exhibit B? Dan 04:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It also says on their official website that they have already recorded four songs to Exhibit B, the follow-up of Exhibit A. There is no reason to delete this article. Jillord 02:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my view this future project does not establish Notability as expected to be included in Wiki Neozoon 23:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll
future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, the artist isn't notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Rock and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Rock 2. NawlinWiki 21:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no reliable sources Will (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to band's page without prejudice for recreation once release is imminent JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll
Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 00:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to Byzantine (band) nothing to merge as ablum details already in Byzantine (band) article, providing album meets notability requirements redirect can be removed and article expanded. Gnangarra 06:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Future album in violation of WP:CRYSTAL Will (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
future album that presents no sources Will (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete by User:Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. ~Eliz81(C) 20:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is no longer necessary after the infobox creation on Florida Institute of Technology#Student Organizations. It displays the same information in the same categories. Therefore this article is now obsolete.
Author was myself... so it should be a problem with the original author. Jameson L. Tai 12:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was (Merge and) redirect. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although the AFD was not visited by many editors, there is a clear consensus that (in my view) is also a correct consensus. Looking at the coverage of the proposed mergeto article, it's very hard to see a good case for Caucasian Albanians as well as Caucasian Albania. Any information related to the topic will be added to the existing article.
It have been suggested in Talk:Caucasian_Albanians#more_info_reqd that this article should be redirecte to Caucasian Albania because it doesn't provide any "new information" besides that article. I don't agree with this reasoning, so I decided to put this article on afd and hear the third party view. Please read that discussion and give your opinion, thanks.--Pejman47 22:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article, as written now, specifies only the ancient history of these people, and it does not address the these people after they were Turkified.Hajji Piruz 22:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. W.marsh 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. Jonathan letters to the editor—my work 16:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
)
The result was keep, no consensus to delete. JodyB Roll, Tide, Roll
Obvious original research. No sources are given and the list appears to be an arbitrary list of a few well known jazz tunes. Also what exactly is that title supposed to be? According to what composer? S.dedalus 06:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sources but the subject is notable. There are whole books written on defining the standard compositions that make up the jazz repertoire (I have placed a small list on the article's talk page). dissolvetalk 17:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 10:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable minor sports publishing company that has (by my count) published only six books in the space of a decade. Article reads little more than a catalogue advertising their published books than any kind of information on what makes them so notable or important. Fails to meet WP:CORP by not being covered in depth by secondary sources - even the references in the article only mention the publisher's name in passing. Qwghlm 20:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Removed indent) I omitted the sentence that was a list, the vast majority if which is irrelevant to this debate. I think for athletics we can safely read sport. The references indicate that the efforts of Hagiology (who both write and publish the books) have been commended in national media for their work, most notably In That Number. Ignoring the fact that these publications are well known by Southampton fans, plaudits from national media surely justify notability. See for yourself (taken from references):
That to me suggests that their efforts are certainly notable. Their work have surpassed being notable to Southampton fans, but of being of interest to the wider footballing community. Dan K 10:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]