| < October 25 | October 27 > |
|---|
The result was delete. GDonato (talk) 16:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article's title and contents are probably original research, as the article has no sources and a Google search yields only Wikipedia mirrors and unrelated pages. Wikipedia already has an article on a similar topic: scrolling shooter. Alksub 23:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1, repeatedly reposted (under different title) hoaxery. NawlinWiki 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm wrong, but this seems like pure nonsense. Lampman 23:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Read
i wrote some of the article and do not understand why you think it to be incoherent, it is not, we are just trying to add a page about real men who storys have just been brought to light. This does not benfit us we just want others to here about what they did. Lampland please research this is new info, thankyou.
The result was Speedy delete g1, repeatedly reposted hoax, will salt. NawlinWiki 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relates to The Gamma Adventurers League, same reason. Lampman 23:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college Div III team. Speciate 22:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GDonato (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Character is extremely minor, featured in only half of one single comic book. His entry at List of Amalgam Comics characters is sufficient. Konczewski 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization, puff piece. Speciate 22:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spam article for a company that lists no references outside of two company press releases. I told the article's author (who -given his witty username- seems to be an employee of the company in question) a few days back that the article needed some references to secondary sources but none have materialized. A Traintalk 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pretty much redundant and contains the same information as Clan (computer gaming). Nothing on that page is unique to WoW and the information there pretty much applies to every other MMORPG. --Hdt83 Chat 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 21:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is written almost entirely from an in-universe point of view, offering only two brief, speculatory, and unreferenced relations between the fiction of Tolkein and the real-life world. There are no references in the article and the entire thing is written as a textbook example of WP:NOT#PLOT. I'd recommend deletion unless someone can find another Wiki site to transwiki this to, however I note that this site doesn't appear to be a proper Wiki and has a copyright notice at the bottom, and this site already has a near-exact copy of this article. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all--JForget 23:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know people don't like mass nominations, but these are of a sort and basically suffer the same ills from the same artist(s). They are a bunch of compilation albums, without sourcing to show any notability, all fail WP:MUSIC - the producer's bio was deleted as nn a while ago, but there are literally dozens of these sorts of mixes of common songs/instrumentals recorded by nn people and mass marketed - not notable WP:N. Yes, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and the Christmas songs are notable, but these particular recordings etc. of them aren't.
Carlossuarez46 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by Nominator, defaulting to keep, non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 23:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ending the too-long-lasting discussion once and for all. This discussion has been active for far too long. Once this discussion is over, everything that's not part of the final results, should be reverted. Agreed? TheBlazikenMaster 22:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. GDonato (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Middle school indistinguishable from thousands of others. No assertion of notability. Valrith 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Content can be recovered from history and merged, if it is deemed appropriate. GDonato (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional play with very little content other than song lyrics whose inclusion must be dubious on copyright grounds. The remaining content is already in We Can Be Heroes: Finding The Australian of the Year Mattinbgn\talk 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by Nominator defaulting to keep non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 02:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notability. Article created day he died from the obituary. His Jewelry company does not have an article (that I could find), and that is what he is supposedly notable for. Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 22:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep/Withdraw - I guess I don't know much about notability eh. I assumed it was made out of his death. Please close this and keep it, sorry about the misunderstandingTrevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 04:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. No claim of notability, no coverage in secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO. Valrith 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn musician, fails WP:BAND and WP:BIO. she's unsigned, no releases under a label. To quote the article "Carrie currently holds a job in a busy Liverpool City Center shop to fund her path to "international superstardom". Her musical talent remains unsigned to any record label at present but with Carrie's prospects, a signing is thought likely among fans. Carrie continues to hold occasional shows at bars in the Liverpool area" which sums up her claim to fame - I speedied it before as A7, now its back and I'll let the community decide because it'll no doubt keep coming back until the community does. Carlossuarez46 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from Notability Guidelines for Musicians: "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - This is explained in the article, Miss Hayden is the "most prominent representative" of slow/acoustic music and the ONLY popular local musician to perform any style other than Rock, Pop or Indie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlen (talk • contribs) 19:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I THINK she has done a N.America tour but I don't have full details, shall schedule a meeting with her within the week to find contend based on tour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlen (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While the title says "2010" movie, the article claims the film will be released in 2008...which just shows there is very little known about the project. It is uncast and has merely been anounced. When something more concrete has happened the article can return. For now, it is simply crystal ballery. IrishGuy talk 21:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted. IrishGuy talk 21:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks a bit like spam...? KMS 21:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The arguments to delete per WP:RS and WP:N are based in policy. GDonato (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person is notable for being a candidate for an office. The article offers no sources, and my googling turned up only minimal sources; I am not convinced that she meets the notability criteria. Will she still be notable if she loses? In my opinion, no. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable -- see Talk:Infosim for details. A. B. (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. GDonato (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another parliamentary candidate. The closeness of the result and reselection are not notable features in and of themselves. There are thousands of such candidates in elections around the globe. Timrollpickering 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable article created by User:Caligare and previously deleted twice. See Talk:Caligare for notability comments. A. B. (talk) 20:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Arguments for both keep and delete are present and fairly equal. GDonato (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is primarily being nominated because it appears to be of a nonnotable subject. There are hundreds of press secretaries on the 1.5 sq miles of Capitol Hill. Also, and this is perhaps conjecture, but this subject has been the focus of some investigations by the media as to whether or not it is autobiographical. See here and here. I am simply trying to begin some debate on this topic and am interested on what the Wikipedia community has to say. Daysleeper47 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. There was some support for a merger to a list; if someone wants to do that, see Help:Merging and moving pages for instructions. --bainer (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable characters from a manga series -- here are some of them that I tagged as part of this AfD but there are dozens more -- they should be part of a list, but do not deserve to each their own page.
Llajwa 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deltion nomination Contested prod. This is a dictionary definition and, per WP:DICDEF, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Another Wikimedia site exists for articles like this, and that is Wiktionary. This reasoning was explained in the original prod. The prod was removed, and a single sentance was added indicating that Stephen King has used the term. OK. Even if true, that doesn't make this any more of an appropriate encyclopedia article. Jayron32|talk|contribs 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Carioca 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability - fails Wp:bio. Llajwa 19:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete The very premise of this article is based on original research in the respect that it is trying to quantitatively compare the opinions of disparate sources as to what constitutes the "greatest ever" television series. Some of these entries are being touted as "greatest ever" based on time aired, some on determination in various magazines. At this point there isn't even anything worth merging or refactoring in this article but if I had to give any recommendation it would be better to do fresh lists that were source specific (i.e. Best Television shows according to "Reliable Source X") and tie them together with a master list.--Isotope23 talk 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time this article has been proposed, yet having watched the page since the previous nomination was closed on 14 June 2007, it appears to have progressed no further than being a heated debate between Plasma Twa 2 and AKR619 which at one point led to it being protected. To me, it appears that the rules for inclusion have been decided by two individuals and a brief look at the edit history[6] reveals nothing but editor's point of view, which violates any number of policies but specifically WP:NPOV. The recent deletion of Actors and actresses considered the greatest ever has concreted my suspicion that this article is probably not going to progress beyond being a magnet for POV. Bob talk 18:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Band with one self-released album; fails WP:MUSIC. It is claimed that their music has been used in a TV program, but apparently this has not lead to significant secondary coverage. PROD was contested in January. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep/no consensus. There is certainly not a consensus present to delete though. GDonato (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, indiscriminate list. Categories work much better than lists like this and List of anarchist poets. Only bands that have been explicitly identified as anarchists should be included here and as there are no sources we should not have such a list. violet/riga (t) 18:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the keep voters: Please tell me how this list is in any way better than a category. It does not organise things by date or sub-genre. The title is incorrect as this is a list of bands and not musicians. It is totally unreferenced and sourcing it would be something of a pointless duplication of putting the references into the articles. I am tempted to speedy it based on these points and regret placing it on AfD - I hope these points will be taken into consideration by the closer rather than counting votes. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GDonato (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NF, unreferenced, no notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 22:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy per A7 - the "hottest in the country" phrase is not a claim of notability for this person. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod so off we go through the motions... Prod nomination is "Apparently non-notable - never played at any kind of level other than school. Not speedying due to that "Hottest in the country" claim.", don't see anything further to add to that. — iridescent 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local politician without substantiated claims to notability. Fails WP:BIO. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school. Fails WP:ORG. Delete J 17:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article provides no references, and may be a hoax. Google has no references to such an individual, so far as I can determine. Prod tag was removed without comment by an anonymous user. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion, no assertion of notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed, concern is general notability of the subject Kwsn (Ni!) 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion nor evidence of notability for either the documentary nor it's creators. TexasAndroid 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The documentary is in production. I will add an infobox and a link to their web site. Henry kumagai 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, but requires sources. Redirecting to Proud Mary would be acceptable, subject to consensus, until secondary sources are available. --Tony Sidaway 18:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability claimed, but not demonstrated. I was unable to find any evidence of notability searching for additional sources. Toddstreat1 17:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JHunterJ (talk • contribs) 16:09, October 27, 2007 (UTC)
This is all obvious cruft and plot summary information Pilotbob 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the pages below for the same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotbob (talk • contribs) 04:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This company is non-notable, they fail both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. The article needs to cite more sources. Delete J 16:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 09:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria. There is a source, but it's a fan site, and I can't find any more reliable sources with my own googling. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork of this diff of "Bible" to this diff of "Christian Bible", with Hebrew Bible section removed. uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - clearly fails WP:BIO. - KrakatoaKatie 11:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity article with no independent sources to indicate that this local politician is in any way notable. Cap'n Walker 16:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was "Delete- along with a four-to-one majority, I also fail to see any notability, especially when the entire article is in-universe and there are no reliable sources." Mike (Kicking222) 03:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Mikeblas 15:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --bainer (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's notes
Some searching reveals at least some of the text to be copied from an article by Bernard Edelman in the VVA Veteran magazine, January/February 2003 (can't find an online version at the moment) so a merger would not be appropriate.
No-one commenting here was opposed to having some coverage of the topic however, and as Edison suggested, that should probably be done in the veteran article. --bainer (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this article even exists. Completely original research, cites no sources, unverified, and lists many living people by name. Delete. Crockspot 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to list of B roads in Great Britain. --bainer (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor road, with no assertion of notability of any kind. Article consists solely of directions. I tried to redirect this to List of B roads in Great Britain, which would have been the logical step, but was reverted. Suggest delete and redirect. Neil ☎ 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 17:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that kept me from adding a "speedy" template was the line about Perez Hilton, which, although an assertion of notability, does not help the article meet WP:BIO. Ichormosquito 15:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be deleted. He is very popular among the Youtube community. WHATTHEBUCKSHOW's Michael Buckley always mentions him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyRoche (talk • contribs) 17:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Tikiwont 10:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
little content, notability, unsourced. This is an encyclopedia, not the yellow pages. Jameson L. Tai 15:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((hangon)) and ((inuse)) so he could continue editing the article in hopes that the article would survive, but it has not been the case. Since nominating for AfD, the article's been practically untouched while the user continues to add more userboxes in his user page and ranting about "Tagging passes the buck. Deleting a good stub is akin to sheer laziness. Quoting a WP reference page every few lines to back-up your maliciousness only goes to show your lack of understanding of the core of this project." It's sad. Really sad. Jameson L. Tai 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was speedy redirect. J Milburn 15:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to the children's TV show Dragon Tales is being replaced with a article about a web comic. The web-comic shows no assertion of notability, and no independent sourcing. Would likely be A7-Web Speedy fodder, except that IMHO it should not be deleted, but restored to the redirect. An AFD will give a few days to see if there are indeed any sources to be found for the web-comic, and if not it will put authority behind enforcing that the page stay as a redirect. TexasAndroid 14:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as reposted (and contested), but has in the past only been speedied and never discussed, so let's do so now. Tikiwont 14:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Ρх₥α 02:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An unmaintainable list. List of doo wop musicians sufficiently covers the topic; we don't need a list of every doo wop song written, just like there are no List of rock songs or List of hip hop songs articles. 17Drew 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOR and WP:CBALL. MrStalker talk 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely ungrounded in reality, with no sources and generally utter BS. Mikael GRizzly 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 11:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Massive list of people that met someone. The title is not correct at the very least as one section lists people that "served or corresponded with Baba but did not call themselves followers". I'm not sure how useful a list this is considering that the majority are not notable and for the others it's mostly an irrelevance (where otherwise I'm sure it's detailed in their own article or they are included in the appropriate category). violet/riga (t) 13:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Change of Mind. --Tony Sidaway 18:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another piece of Leslie Nielsen cruft. Article concerns a minor character in Change of Mind and sourced exclusively to the article's contributor. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Wrongfully Accused. which I have done. Could use cleanup, though. Neil ☎ 11:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a fictional character in a one-off Leslie Nielsen spoof. Most of the article is a plot summary of Wrongfully Accused. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, the keep voters didn't provide a valid reason to keep this article, while the delete side agrues policy. This is a Secret account 02:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the show does not affect the notability of the topic (minor characters). As the title suggests, the list is composed completely of minor characters, most - if not all (I haven't really checked) - of whom only appear in one episode. The characters actually worth mentioning in an encyclopedia, not fanwiki, have relevant information that can be found in episode or main character articles. •97198 talk 13:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article on minor fictional character. There's only one sentence actually describing the character ("first one to die") and a section on who portrayed the character in different adaptations of the fictional work. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, with the proviso that unreferenced entries should be removed. --bainer (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to speedy this as a WP:BLP concern but thought it nicer to bring it here. The article is totally unsourced and claims religious views on numerous Italian politicians, most of whom don't even have their own article, the notability of people in this list is then also called into question. violet/riga (t) 12:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice. ^demon[omg plz] 13:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of liquors made by a certain company. Even though it is not a copyvio from their website (was deleted as such but the permission email was sent to OTRS), it is definitely listcruft. Delete. Resurgent insurgent (as admin) 00:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have just added the rest of the information that was intended to be included with this article when posted. Hopefully this helps it's cause. Jessica.underwood 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is now also an article on the company - see Vok Beverages Jessica.underwood 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article on the company "Vok Beverages" has now been deleted. I presume somebody thought it was spam. Jessica.underwood 04:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material). —David Eppstein 19:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial secondary coverage for this jockey is lacking. After the first AfD, the article was recreated under a different title, then moved back. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 16:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable as per WP:CORP akaDruid 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. Could probably do with more sources, though. Neil ☎ 10:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this constitutes encyclopedic material. It is obviously incomplete, and is unreferenced and completely originally researched. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.Kubigula (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cluttered, opinionated and unsourced. Seems unencyclopedic. βritandβeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable primary school, redirecting is pointless since title is so long. SolidPlaid 09:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 07:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod from August – the prod notice was removed by an IP editor who removed prod tags from 12 articles in 10 minutes. This unreferenced, autobiographical article is from a man who has completed one documentary, about Miss Canada, in 2004. There's no notability here. KrakatoaKatie 09:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There do not seem to be independent sources for this organization in Nepal. A request to WikiProject Nepal turned up none either. (If you do know of sources, please add them.) -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 09:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Arguments to keep are based on WP:USEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, neither of which are convincing. Also a lack of any secondary sources. WP:V is non-negotiable. Neil ☎ 10:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources can be found to demonstrate notability, as this fictional time line is primarily derived from the Ultima game manuals, which have no significance per se. Gavin Collins 09:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed. Request for sources appears to have been ignored. A googles search for "Pedigree" obviously would bring forth a ridiculous amount of hits. However, a google search for Pedigree and Taavi Aavik (a band member) brings forth 18 hits. A search for Pedigree and Margo Rindemaa (another band member) brings forth 2 hits. Non-notable band. IrishGuy talk 08:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Asserting coverage in several sources without actually providing them is not very convincing. Neil ☎ 10:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this was speedied before, but I nominate this for AfD due to sources stated and for general non-notability. It seems to be just another quasi-advertising article promoting the browser. Phgao 07:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep per Cynical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.238.209 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC) — 203.221.238.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and is likely same person who attempted to close this AfD.[16][reply]
The result was Keep, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with ((nn)) and ((primarysources)). Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the nn/ps tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply](contribs) 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only the editions created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with ((nn)) and ((primarysources)). Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, with a reminder to actually address the raised points on the basis of the indicated sources and editorial commitment.Tikiwont 16:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fictional location, fails WP:FICTION. I have noticed in the last few days that most of the articles in Category:Middle-earth locations contain no references to secondary sources, and many are entirely unreferenced. This article cites only Tolkein's own works and the editions thereof created by Christopher Tolkein, so I had tagged the article with ((nn)) and ((primarysources)). Those tags were removed on the grounds that "Christopher Tolkein's work is a secondary source". I believe that this is wrong: as the article Christopher Tolkien makes clear, he edited collections of his fathers' work, completing some unfinished material, but the valuable work of an editor is not a secondary source. Per WP:OR, "secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims". Posthumous editions of unpublished works do not meet that test, whether or not the editor completes unfinished material.
I should stress that I have nothing against Tolkien, and I know that his works have amassed a huge cult following even before the release of the blockbuster films. The original works and the films are clearly very notable, as are some major characters and other details but that doesn't mean that every detail of the works is also notable. (See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#Notability_of_articles.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]The result was Speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) and allow the editors some time to assemble sources and improve the articles. This would be true even if the idea wasn't laughable that Gondor, a major setting in a major work of literature, is "non-notable". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
((in-universe)) might be appropriate as an additional tag for such articles, but it doesn't cover the notability problems. As stated in the nomination, I would have been happy to leave time for improvement, but the tags were removed. However, it is perfectly proper to make an AfD nomination of an article for which notability has not been established. I have nominated only 4 articles, and if these articles are remotely as notable as commentators are claiming at AfD, then the 7 day span of an AfD should be plenty of time to accumulate the minimal referencing required to establish notablity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DarthSidious 10:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Patients' group for chronic fatigue syndrome patients in the Netherlands. Article largely written by Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs), who is on the organisation's board[28] and has been warned in the past on WP:COI. No mention of membership, largely a WP:COATRACK on a much larger issue, namely the exact cause and management of CFS. That issue is already spelled out clearly in the CFS article. For these reasons, I propose delete of this article. JFW | T@lk 07:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I have moved the edits User:AvB deleted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging) Fram 09:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete ^demon[omg plz] 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing a partial nom. Appears to be a non-notable web site, individual, company, and product -- all in one article. Not quite a speedy candidate, as there's notability (albeit very questionable notability) asserted. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know about non-notable, most of it seems more non-existant. Article is mainly about a blog site, which probably fails WP:WEB. However mostly this appears to be a hoax. Google shows nothing linking teendrop to anyone with the name Tyler Thomas [31] [32]. Searches for several of the other 'companies' this person supposedly owns return nothing of interest; eFriendzs in particluar is a redirect to teendrop, YouPay (both org and net) appears to be nothing more than squatter pages (apparently at one point however, YouPay.net was a site like paypal according to various message board questions regarding the site [33]), and TreyGotIt returns nothing at all. As for the legal claims, well we need a wp:this is abolute crap policy. The tv show, 'Yo'Trey!' doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere as far I can see. Don't know why I bothered, but I also emailed the owners of NiggaSpace.com to confirm whether there is any truth to the claims of a lawsuit. If I get a reply and this Afd is still open, I'll put it in here. ARendedWinter 07:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no references, the song was not even confirmed to be a single thus not notable. Daniil Maslyuk 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep (non-admin closure). AFD is not cleanup. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The material in this article is too narrow in scope for its title and selectively overlaps material from other sites as a pov branch. This article uses the most general related title, “child support” to focus very narrowly on a select group of government enforcement policies in select countries that are only responsible for a very small fraction of support of children in those countries. The material is already covered in separate pages for each country. The select policies and programs are the result of recent radical reforms resulting from the same political movement and philosophy; representing the view that children are only supported as the result of government force. The article emphasizes this pov by in effect defining the general term “child support” (its title) as inclusive only of those select enforcement programs. Merge of material with pages covering the enforcement policies and programs in the select countries was suggested. This article does not have a npov (credible) reason for existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs)
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod deleted by original author. Entrance theme of Hulk Hogan, but isn't notable outside of that. Most of the information is already mentioned in Hogan's article, and this doesn't warrant an article of its own. Nikki311 06:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Haemo 00:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fictional galactic province that Isaac Azimov created. I prod tagged it, 132.205.99.122 removed the prod tag and stated in its edit summary, "major location in a major work of fiction". I did a quick google search, found Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, along with other wikis, predominate. Unsourced, in-universe, plot summary, no information of value to merge anywhere. Fee Fi Foe Fum 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus default to keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prior AfD was overturned at deletion review and referred back here to have a closer look at the provided sources. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not notable, unsourced Pilotbob 05:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as A7. J Milburn 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable Pilotbob 05:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Neil ☎ 10:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO Pilotbob 05:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Hogwarts. I will notify the HP project to proceed. Neil ☎ 10:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Crufty, in universe context that cannot be solved by editing, cannot be cited from reliable sources Pilotbob 04:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 01:38, 11/4/2007
Fails WP:BIO for porn actresses Pilotbob 04:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability criteria, local soccer club Pilotbob 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 01:30, 11/4/2007
Delete I have reservations whether either of these guys were Sir Guthrie, as the normal convention is Sir <given name> nor Sir <surname>. If that is so, this dab is unnecessary Carlossuarez46 04:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any assertion of notability in this lengthy, unsourced article. I also suspect it's autobiographical (editor's username is an "alter ego" of the subject of the article.) I just don't see him meeting WP:BIO. Pigman 04:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. east.718 at 01:29, 11/4/2007
This does not meet notability criteria, the old AFD is very old and should be reconsidered. Also sounds like original research with no reliable sources Pilotbob 04:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was close, not an article, but a redirect. In addition, redirects and cheap and this one seems perfectly valid. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a useless redirect that serves no real purpose. Brock Lesnar has never been known as just Lesnar in his career. As a note: I tried to speedy this, but it got declined. RobJ1981 04:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Directory list of non-notable publishers, possibly created just to include some linkspam. Masaruemoto 03:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity biography of non-notable subject. No reference. Arman (Talk) 03:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Crozet, Virginia. --Haemo 00:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMES#Education reports that the general consensus is that usually only high schools are kept; non-notable middle and elementary schools aren't. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was κЄ٤Ϸ. krimpet⟲ 00:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know it have been nominated twice in few months but i believe the users who previously voted don't know the full reasons why it should be deleted. I will list here:
SSPecter Talk|E-Mail ◆ 02:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC).
The result was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No relevant references; article is speculative with no verifiable information. Gingerwiki 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --Tikiwont 10:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. Notability concerns per WP:MUSIC: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs and promo-only records are in general not notable." No sourcing provided. Google hits 43 distinct, but I don't find any reliable source to substantiate notability for this bootleg. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its on the official Celtic Frost web site....look by yourself, and this bootleg is not obscure, In their website they placed only the most important releases (i suppose you know there are hundreds of bootlegs of many bands unregistered)Wayavas1337 16:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was not an article, but a redirect, --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mispelt redirect that no-one is likely to search for. It should be deleted as per the previous USAF wing redirect deletion debate. Buckshot06 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One-watt student radio station that seems to lack (and for which the article doesn't really assert) notability. An AfD for a nearly identical version was started yesterday, but I'm not sure whether this recreation can be speedied under G4, since the article was speedied then before the discussion got very far. Deor 02:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a legitimate student run radio station that has been in operation for 17 years. It runs side by side with a journalism class at Humboldt State University. There are 55 people currently in the class that have been instructed to add content to this page. This second article was added because the first was taken down despite a ((hangon)) tag being added. This article needs to stay on wikipedia, as its notability will be established in the coming weeks. DO NOT REMOVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by KRFH610AM (talk • contribs)
Delete -
The result was Delete - The raised concerns do not just amount to the current form of the page. Tikiwont 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a massive plot summary of the novel. There is no sourced information to prove its notability. Beyond the many sections of plot summary, there are only two sentences about the novel, none of which assert notability or have sources. Metros 01:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Keep votes - I mean "Revise" votes - look meaty and cite no policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing more than a plot summary. There is nothing in here that asserts its notability. There are no sources at all in the article. Without the massive plot summary and "other" section, there are only 2 sentences about the book. Metros 01:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated by Metros; lack of reliable secondary sources is not compensated by plot summary. --Gavin Collins 11:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Hut 8.5 07:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Memorial of a very nice lady. Fails, however, WP:BIO. Brewcrewer 21:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Like the featured article Prostitution in the People's Republic of China this sort of article is clearly encyclopediac - Peripitus (Talk) 12:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally unencyclopedic, plus possible libel issues. —Animum (etc.) 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have used credible sources materials on the issues surrounding prostitution in mexicoDwanyewest 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed project of fleeting notability Richard 00:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the nominator. The building is not going to be completed now, but the building did receive zoning approvals from the city and county government. And it did go quite past the architectual drawings and that is why I believed that this article warranted to be listed because it was very close to becoming an Indianapolis landmark here. Much like the Fordham Spire in Chicago prior to its becoming the Chicago Spire after new financing. Indianapolis411 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--Indianapolis411 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This project, though proposed but not completed just like the The Grollo Tower or the 7 South Dearborn in Chicago or even the Tatlin Tower. This proposed project has architectural significance to the city of Indianapolis as it challanged many of the conservative structures that both stand today or have ever been proposed in a city which is greatly and nationally known for its conservatism. This is one of the first architectural designs of such complexity and contemporary thought ever presented and approved in our city.67.162.51.203 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)--67.162.51.203 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete CSD G4, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Eazy-E, which was even more objective than this article. -- Samir 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom: I've declined a ((db-bio)) on it as there seems to be a legitimate assertion of notability - however it doesn't seem salvageable at present. It's also hopelessly non-neutral and I can't see a way to clean the bias out of it without reducing it to a sub-stub. — iridescent 00:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not salted. GDonato (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable. The related Russian Classical Dance Education at The Ekaterina Dance Studio has been speedily deleted twice, the first time as an advert, which this version doesn't appear to be. Still fails WP:N. Crazysuit 00:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. east.718 at 01:26, 11/4/2007
Non notable Elvis impersonator whose only claim to "fame" is receiving 40 votes when he ran for leadership of the Yukon Liberal Party, and the only reason that was even news was so they could have a joke headline ("'Hound dogs' didn't vote for Elvis"). In other words, not notable. Crazysuit 00:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]