The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page fails to assert notability for the product, and product does not appear to be more notable than any other variety of cider. Googling "Three Hammers" turns up a page for several other institutions named "Three Hammers, but this article is the only one related to the cider on Page 1, and it's #8 at that. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This drink is legendary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bazzlad (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Djma12 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
0 non-wiki ghits for "Haystacks Maguire"; non-wiki ghits for "John Maguire" + any of several prominent terms in article don't give hits that show notability. No sources in article that show notability. Original editor placed "hangon" tag when article was speedied. I assume this means a prod will be contested, so I'm taking it to AfD. Fabrictramp 23:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon - Delete Tiptopper 23:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subject falls short of WP:BIO. Running schools is not notability & no major contributions to the enduring historical record. ExtraDry 23:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— Archifile (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
That was added by a another editor and not part of the template hence it was removed. Why dont you get back to adding SchoolCruft instead of worrying about little things.ExtraDry 12:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Original research based on primary sources. `'Míkka 23:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. User:DragonflySixtyseven
No sources, no explanation as to where this show is televised, zero Google hits with this name. Hoax? Corvus cornix 23:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 22:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
0 non-wiki ghits. Very surprising for someone who was "recognized by club A.S. Roma and they signed him to a 7 year, 6.23 million dollar contract". Contested prod. Fabrictramp 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abandoned page. Tagged for sources/cleanup since December of 05 with no significant improvement in the article. No evidence of WP:N. Avruch 23:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for cleanup since 12/2005 and sources since 06/2006 but no sources have been added. No evidence of WP:N or verifiability. Avruch 22:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for additional comments AvruchTalk 22:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've left a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics regarding this article
Comment. I've left a note at Portal:Business and economics regarding this article
The result was delete. Non-notable club, lack of reliable third-party references. PeaceNT 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think youth football teams fail the notability requirements. Corvus cornix 22:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The events in this article exist in their own pages: Scandinavian Airlines Flight 1209 and Scandinavian Airlines Flight 2748. This article is redundant. Also, both pages were nominated for deletion and survived (see here and here). – Zntrip 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy relegation to the realm of Forgotten Tales Made Up In School One Day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fake data (WP:HOAX) Avg 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn. It is clear to me that the community likes this article and wants to keep it. It is unfortunate that it will only continue to deteriorate into a gigantic repository of trivia over the next several months, and never become a real comprehensive encyclopedic article. Revisit this in 6 months and prove me wrong. Burntsauce 16:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest deletion of this trivial fad. Sources consist of a letter (not an article, a letter) to The New York Times and a puerile filler piece from Time Magazine. There is nothing notable or encyclopedic to be seen here. Burntsauce 22:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete by Pascal.Tesson with the reason "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising". Non-admin close. Bongwarrior 08:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable yogurt shop. Corvus cornix 22:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sources for claims of notability for Mr. Masood as the person who "originate[d] Urdu, Arabic, Persian, Pushto, Sindhi, Punjabi characters for the first time on the Internet in the world with the use of his Urdu Internet Technology." Author removed an ((unsourced)) tag (as well as a prod tag) without adding sources or expanding article. NawlinWiki 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced since marchh, not berifiable via google, orphan. looks like original essay to me `'Míkka 22:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted as copyright violation: cut and paste from Academic Press. `'Míkka 22:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper Corvus cornix 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - While the keep reasoning agrees that reliable sources need to be found (which is self-evident), insufficient reliable source material was presented in this AfD nor was it made clear that such material had a realistic chance of being located. Information taken from the plot itself is not independent reliable source material. Consensus is that there is not enough reliable source material independent of the entries themselves to create an attributable article on the topic. Also, making inferences about the psychiatric diagnoses of fictional characters is both subjective (thus POV) and original research and consensus is that this list was original research. -- Jreferee t/c 03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless huge original research, starting right from Hobbits. Even the list of "real" ones was deleted. `'Míkka 21:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only a small claim of notability in article, with no sources offered to back up claims. First several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Original author placed "hangon" tag on speedy. I assume they will also contest a prod, so I'm taking this straight to AfD. Fabrictramp 21:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another list that seems useless. Ridernyc 21:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came upon this article via an RfC filed over its neutrality. There has been extensive debate over various issues regarding it, before and after the filing of its RfC, which filing has now been replaced by a filing with the Mediation Cabal. Regardless of that, my chief concern has been over its notability. While a popular figure recently with tax protestors (Cryer was acquitted on tax evasion charges in July), there remains the fact that this article is sourced by only one two secondary sources (though there are several primary sources, including court documents and Cryer's soapbox website). An acquittal on tax evasion is not enough to be notable. Being an attorney is not enough to be notable. There is only one relevant, reliable secondary news source for the article, which I believe fails WP:BIO. Before we continue with the Cabal case, I wanted to express my concerns over its notability here and seek community-consensus on the issue. I believe it should be deleted. Into The Fray T/C 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete No indications of professionnal sports player by that name--JForget 23:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax WikiGull 21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
is there any reason to have lists like this other just to make a list about something. I can't imagine how this could be use full for anything. Ridernyc 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have create this article in order to split from the article "african italians" ( persons that live in Italy and are italian, with an african background ) from person that live outside Italy with a mixed italian and african background. An author as suggest that but didn't perform the split.User:Lucifero4
The result was delete. PeaceNT 12:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable individual, no outside/unrelated sources Avruch 20:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. improvement. Nomination withdrawn. PeaceNT 12:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Heroic art asserts that this was the Third Reich's term for their official/preferred art, a claim that is baseless as far as I can tell. The locution "heroic art", which appears in art criticism from time to time, means different things to different people, much like "sentimental art" or "underrated art" or "confusing art", which also don't rate Wikipedia articles. Ewulp 20:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a hoax. Originally created on 19th September it was speedily deleted as the author had blanked the page. He has since recreated it but it reads like a story. The source given for the burial records shows not record of a burial of a person of this name so should be discounted. The second source is merely testifies that a song may (or may not) exist. A Google Search produces a big fat zero, apart from the Wikipedia article [20]. B1atv 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was All delete--JForget 23:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod was removed, but no reliable sources were added to show how this band meets WP:MUSIC.
AfD should also include related articles:
-FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete second time around for this one - was kept after a WP:POINT nomination a year ago, but still suffers from unfixable problems. What's a disaster? According to the article: "A disaster is a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment. Disasters manifest as hazards exacerbating vulnerable conditions and exceeding individuals' and communities means to survive and thrive. Most of the catastrophic disasters listed in this article have occurred at a specific non-enduring time in history rather than a longer time-period (e.g. this excludes entire long-lasting wars while including specific events during wars)." So this list is a mish-mash of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV matters - an earthquake that kills 2 is a disaster - I would think it a tragedy but hardly a disaster (my POV), but no car accidents that kill 2 - the article's POV apparently - unless it's because the Big Dig in Boston is what kills you in your car then 1 death suffices to make it a disaster. Face it: accidents happen all the time that "negatively affect[] life, property, livelihood or industry" - every car crash, industrial accident, product recall, tainted food product, hazardous chemical leak, OPEC meeting, along with even relatively minor (and nn) earthquakes, storms, military engagements. We have subsidiary lists which take care of notable items of each genre; we have categories, too. But to list some things as "disasters" while ignoring others without any definable threshold, is essentially comparing apples to asteroids here. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not every episode of every cartoon needs a page. Overcategorisation. Spamguy 19:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus/keep. — Scientizzle 05:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These articles appear to have been created as spin-offs of National Forensic League. They make no assertions of the notability of each individual part of the (admittedly notable) NFL competition - notability is not inherited. It is unlikely to the point of impossiblity that evidence of such notability can be found. None of these articles provide any reliable sources to verify the claims (or indeed any sources at all), making it impossible to differentiate between verifiable fact and original research. This is significant only as it is doubtful that reliable sources can be found. In the absence of an encyclopaedic coverage, most of the articles incorporate (or incorporated) lists of past winners or other unnecessary and unecyclopaedic information. I have ommitted from this nomination the only article that I believe has the potential to assert its notability (Lincoln-Douglas Debate). While I dislike block nominations as much as any, these articles really are peas in a pod. That pod is, unfortunately, not one of ours. Happy‑melon 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD concerns the following articles:
The result was Speedy delete a7, made-up game, created under this title after repeated speedy deletions and salting of Chicago Ball; WP:SNOW for those being picky about the speedy categories. NawlinWiki 22:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable game invented by author. We really need a speedy category for this kind of thing. Kww 19:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the game was not invented the day before the article was posted, the game was first played, the day before the article was written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emblemcycling (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This short stub has survived a deletion discussion in April 2004 (!) and has been unexpanded ever since. It is about a residential complex within a metropolis in India, consisting of 30 buildings the talk page says. Needless to mention, no secondary sources are given. Although I haven't been here that long, I think that consensus has changed since 2004, and we can delete the article by now. --B. Wolterding 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Consensus is that the topic of each of these articles represent what Wikipedia is not and are inappropriate content forks whose information could be covered adaquately in Chord (music), Major chord, and/or Minor chord. -- Jreferee t/c 04:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone able to explain how this deserves an article?? Georgia guy 18:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep--JForget 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the unsourced, outrageous claims are ignored, I don't think he'd be notable. Adam Cuerden talk 18:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Page looks spammy; a lot of the 'social networks' included do not have articles and the article provides information of little importance to an encyclopaedia. J Di 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page cites no external sources, is written with an obvious and clear bias that is difficult to correct, and is additionally written in poor English. Per WP:N, non-commercial organizations need at least one and preferably multiple unrelated sources. This article appears to have none. Avruch 15:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fifth property of the Euclidean metric
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An undergraduate publication that currently does not establish notability. It might be notable, but of it is then it needs to be shown in the article. Wizardman 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Cryptic 04:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a singer who placed in the country preliminaries for Eurovision. While being in the Eurovision Song Contest establishes notability, I don't believe this is the case for preliminary events. Wizardman 17:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No apparent notability: fails WP:BIO. No independent third-party sources. Web presence is all self-published. Freshacconci | Talk 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax or non notable band OSbornarfcontributionatoration 16:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN Endless Dan 16:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - consensus appears that they are NN. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local midday radio talk show. Cap'n Walker 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 17:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Local weekend talk radio show. No reliable independent sources to establish notability. Cap'n Walker 16:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unsourced; suspected hoax Man vyi 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Consensus is that the topics each fail to meet general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee t/c 04:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
These characters are non-notable outside of Neverwinter Nights 2, and read something like a game guide. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 15:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by me. J Milburn 19:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't assert or demonstrate the group's notability. It doesn't appear to match the criteria in either WP:ORG or WP:BIO. There are mentions on the internet, but mostly on non-reliable sources such YouTube and MySpace. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 15:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-stan (talk • contribs)
WP:OUTCOMES#Education states that middle schools that do not assert notability are getting deleted. The only apparent claim to notability is that it is for the "gifted". Note also that many students of the school seem to be actively editing the page, so we could have a conflict of interest here. J-ſtanTalkContribs 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy redirect after merge, which requires redirect under GFDL. On examination there were only a few things worth carrying over. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jessica Bergsten[edit]AfDs for this article:
Second nomination. The previous nomination had a consensus of merge, but nobody's performed the merge. This material shouldn't be merged, anyway, as it is completely unreferenced biographical information. Mikeblas 15:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Aarktica 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Zonal Employee Discount[edit]
Fails WP:V and WP:N, can't find multiple, non-trivial sources to give this topic notability in an encyclopaedic context. Would also likely be against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Russavia 14:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. GRBerry 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] In-situ marketing[edit]
orphaned article started by an editor with a CoI, who has started inserting spam links into other articles. I'm no expert on markrting but I see nothing remarkable about this Dr. Augustine Fou's theories. Ridernyc 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Acfou 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Augustine Fou these are topics for discussion and contribution by others. Is there a different place or site where I should be starting these? the initial article which is linked, gives examples (so they are not reproduced here)[reply] Can you suggest how to edit this topic?
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lucas Wynne[edit]Notability appears limited to YouTube and MySpace. No reliable and independent sources have written about this musician, who appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Dhartung | Talk 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wynne is considered a "major independent" artist. Which is Nashville-slang for "will be signed to a label any day now". Carries a rather large fan base, is immensley popular among country fans, has a strong following in the Heartland, and has been featured in multiple forms of media. (Online Radio Stations, Websites, Articles, Newspapers, Magazines, TV) He's actually released a CD to limited fans only and another form of that CD to executives. - countryfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.232.233 (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added cited resources for his business ventures including a direct link to the ABA. - countryfan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.232.233 (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Cryptic 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Deep Thought Games, LLC[edit]
No verifiable sources give any indication that this company is notable --Pak21 13:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cartman (band)[edit]
Delete. NN, fails WP:Music, only 1 user seems to be editing this page. Endless Dan 13:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As such I believe the band satisfies the notability criteria and should be retained.
The result was keep. John254 00:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Cosma Shalizi[edit]
Doesn't meet WP:BIO. While the subject has authored an algorithm and been mentioned by Nature in the context of blogging, he does not have the necessary in-depth or multiple third party reliable sources to write a proper biography. The algorithm itself may or may not be notable, but in any case does not have an article yet. I have no doubt that the subject may achieve notability, but typically assistant professors are below the notability threshhold. IPSOS (talk) 12:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete. However, I find it very strange that the scandal that supposedly makes this building notable is not mentioned in the article. This should be nominated again in the future if a clear, sourced assertion of notability is not added. Chick Bowen 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Metropolitan Courthouse[edit]
Another non notable highrise building in Albuquerque. Nothing remarkable or notable about it. Fram 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete —David Eppstein 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wells Fargo Bank Building[edit]
Non notable building. Not the highest, first, most influential, controversial, ... in fact, a rather non notable building of 53 metres high. Fram 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete —David Eppstein 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Anasazi Downtown[edit]
Non notable building. Not extremely high (41 m), not even for where its located: not historical, not architecturally remarkable, not otherwise noted. Not every skyscraper (if one can call a 40 meter building a skyscraper) needs an article. Fram 12:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no credible assertion of notability. I especially like the "reference" of "1. Thehottestfuckingbeatmakerunderthesun". NawlinWiki 15:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] John Winkenwerder[edit]
No reliable sources. No evidence that he is notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. 33 ghits for "John Winkenwerder"...most of which appear to be for a managing partner of a North Carolina hotel. Prod removed by author without comment. Onorem♠Dil 12:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete —David Eppstein 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Montessori in Redlands[edit]
I would say redirect to Montessori method, but it's an unlikely typo. Rocket000 11:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Munging[edit]Slang word definition. Transwiki not needed. (Kinda popular slang word, so I didn't speedy this). [Caution: describes a very sick activity] Rocket000 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Cryptic 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Leigh-Ann Galloway[edit]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Godfather Part IV[edit]
I didn't know what else to do with this, so I'll bring it to AFD. There are vague references available, but the article as it is provides no context, and offers a look into the possible future Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 18:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Chelsee Healey[edit]
The result was keep. Wizardman 18:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Raymond Gubbay[edit]
The result was speedily deleted, per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Agüeybaná 22:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Caoimhinn barr[edit]
Tagged as db-bio, the creator removed the tag without any explanation. The subject of the article does not assert any notability that I can classify. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the db-bio tag - because I hadn't got a clue what it was!! Not because I was trying to break any Wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moville red (talk • contribs) 11:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Portsmouth 7 Reading 4[edit]
Contested PROD; article about a non-notable football match characterized solely by a weird final result. We discussed the issue on the Football WikiProject, surfacing a large consensus in support for deleting the article. Have your say. Angelo 11:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This does not seem like a good Wiktionary candidate to me because of the original research, but if anyone wants the deleted content for that purpose, just ask and I'll provide it. Chick Bowen 02:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Ryona[edit]Fails WP:NEO. I quote the creator: "please edit or delete if nessecary" Punkmorten 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. W.marsh 20:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Mobile acting as dongle to PC[edit]
I'm so sorry to trouble you with this. The {prod} was removed from this article, which is... well, I'm not sure what it is, to be honest. But I'm pretty sure that it isn't an encyclopedia article on a noteworthy subject. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Lauren Elliott[edit]
I originally speedied this under CSD:A7, but upon second thought, I'm not sure this isn't for real, so I bring it to AFD for further consideration (also Lauren elliott) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a reason to delete this page. The guy was one of the people that created the edutainment-elearning industry back in the 80's and generated the bases of edu video games that are played today. It could be more biopic, but I think that will come in time. AJS 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)ajschmidt[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Sexual Harassment Panda[edit]
I have nominated this article for deletion per Wikipedia's policy for articles regarding specific episodes of a TV Series such as Critic Reviews and Characters involved etc. This page has been edited several times with little or no change towards complying with WP:EPISODE. --Amaraiel 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep - I think that the article can be worked upon to help bring it to correct standards - not to mention that there are many episodes that have less content than this, South Park or not. I hardly see this as a reason to delete a single episode out of the many on this list, or across Wikipedia for that matter. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to somewhere. The article is a short stub that reads in full: "The Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia is a term used by the present Government of the Czech Republic to refer to the military presence and force-backed political intervention of the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia following the invasion of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic by Warsaw Pact forces in 1968 to suppress a period of political liberalization known as the Prague Spring. The Czech government claims that the occupation regime lasted from the suppression of the Prague Spring until the Velvet Revolution in 1989, shortly before the collapse of the Soviet Union." – Consensus is that this term, at least with this sparse content, should not be the subject of a separate article, but that the term should be covered (if at all) in one of the appropriate historical articles. I think Prague spring will do, but editors' consensus may change that target. If we have sufficient historiographical content specifically about the term "Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia" (as opposed to historical content about that period of time), the article may be spun off again under WP:SS. Sandstein 21:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia[edit]
This is a POV-fork of Prague Spring and History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), created by a user with the long history of disruption User:Digwuren (see blocklog: [53]), who also created (and attempted to re-create) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation and Estophobia. This ill-sourced article intended only to represent one side's point of view as the only correct. Note that the topic is havily occupied by a number of related accounts from Estonia (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX).--Dojarca 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by WP:SNOW and clear consensus per WP:CON, because it consists of material that is WP:OR, WP:ESSAY, WP:SOAP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. It violates those policies as well as WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NOT. This is not a speedy delete, and should not be "salted". Bearian 18:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pario[edit]Contested prod. This is an essay promoting something called "Pario" as a replacement for the time-honored equals sign. This article is a weird hybrid of promotion, original research, and new age psychobabble, and is a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. Bongwarrior 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete --Aarktica 12:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Brian D. Weiss[edit]
The result was Keep - Consensus is that there is sufficient reliable source material independent of Brant Secunda and his control for the topic to meet general notability guidelines. Not that this is related to AfD issues, but as for NPOV, it is not Wikipedia's place to balance out reliable source material. If the Wikipedia article is reflective of existing reliable source material, then the article may meet WP:NPOV, even if the reliable source material is POV on balance. -- Jreferee t/c 03:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Brant secunda[edit]
I came across this article a couple of days ago, and I've been thinking about it since that time. I follow WP:BLP and the notability standards for people, and even the notability standards for religious people that has not been adopted. I decided to bring it here to see what everyone else thinks. I apologize for the length of my comments. This article has been created at least once before, apparently by the subject's brother (judging by the user name). In July 2007, it was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7, as blatant advertising and no assertion of notability. It's back now in near-identical form, including the advertising, except it claims notability with an assertion that he "share(s) Huichol traditions with people worldwide." Online research shows that's exactly what he does, and he does it regularly. I found dozens of links to vacation packages and retreats and seminars to "join world famous shaman Brant Secunda and (someone else) for extraordinary weekend program/weekend workshop/," for the low price of $230 or however much he charges. The metroactive.com link in the EL section, an article in a Santa Cruz, California, even mentions a weekend workshop for $185. I counted 20 of these before I stopped. I was leaning toward placing a G11 tag on it, because three of its paragraphs are identical to the version NawlinWiki deleted under G12 in July. But here's where it gets fuzzy for me. On Google Books, there are a few books that briefly mention him, but I'm not sure if they rise to the level required for notability, either on their own or together. In this book about rituals in general, his claims of powers imported from his mentor are dismissed in a couple of lines. Here is a mention of his name only, and a book on shamanism has a paragraph not on his current "abilities" but on his trip to Mexico to find a particular legendary shaman. Other books like The Complete Idiot's Guide to Shamanism, have his name only listed in the appendix under "shamans". So my question is, how do these books, along with the commercial nature of the available references and ELs, figure into notability? Should we even include the books, under WP:BLP? Do links to weekend retreats or vacation packages or workshops, created for or by Secunda, demonstrate notability? Could this become another BLP battleground? I don't know, which is why I've brought it here for discussion. A shaman of such repute to the modern Huichols doesn't have a mention in Huichol, save a 'see also' at the bottom of the page added by the article's creator in July and left in place – undisturbed and redlinked – until this article was reborn. That by itself makes me wonder about his importance and relevance to the Huichol people. Let the discussion begin. - KrakatoaKatie 08:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Camp Biscayne[edit]
Non-notable and
We will be putting the Camp Biscayne sign up, and further references. The undated brochure is in our archives, as is the hotel register. There are only three books written about the Barnacle. Munroe's autobiography (now out of print) includes a brief chapter on Camp Biscayne. The Barnacle, Camp Biscayne, the Biscayne Bay yacht Club, Ransom School, and the Women's Club were the principal organizations in the Grove 100 years ago as they are today. But of these only Camp Biscayne is no longer extant. You should know that Ralph Munroe has an almost cult following among sailors of traditional wooden boats. Many of the leading yachtmen of the day owned Munroe boats and many of these were guests at Camp Biscayne. Please leave it up we will take your views seriously and strive to improve this site. Yours truly, Susannah Worth, Curator, The Barnacle Historic State Park. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannah Worth (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Raman Prinja[edit]The subject may be notable, but I doubt that any of the text of this article (whose author has no other significant edits, so is probably the subject) would survive the necessary rewrite. Example: "Written by award-winning scientist Dr Raman Prinja, the exhilarating and accessible text is matched with over 100 incredible images, making this the essential 21st-century guide to the planets and our place in the universe." And that is pretty much representative of the whole tone of the article. Cruftbane 07:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep by consensus. Needs more sources, so if not improved further, can be the subject of another AfD after a few months. Bearian 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Command Carrier[edit]
Fancruft about a fictional spacecraft, without sources demonstrating notability.--Gavin Collins 07:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--JForget 23:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Niranjan Parihar[edit]
Little known journalist/editor who doesn't meet WP:BIO[65][66]. The article was earlier created by User:Niranjanparihar and was deleted as expired PROD. Now, it has been re-created by a single-purpose account, User:Siktasingh. utcursch | talk 07:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is that this is a notable medicine, even though (or even because) it is likely an Iranian government hoax. Sandstein 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] IMOD[edit]This article is an obvious example of disinformation regarding a non-existent product that was itself created for the purposes of disinformation. The references to the "AIDS cure" are part of Iranian-controlled media, with the exception of the BBC Persia link which I can't read--I couldn't find any reference to the term on the English BBC site. The talk page alone provides enough evidence per the discussion of the page's creators to warrant deletion. It was listed under the list of antiviral drugs, which was incorrect since there is no evidence it does anything but misinform. The "manufacturer's" website talks about how successful the "cure" is and how happy AIDS patients are to be cured, but the discussion forums are empty. The news coverage is limited at best, manufactured at worst and the topic is therefore not notable. It's announcement might be notable were it something that affected foreign relations or the scientific or HIV-positive communities, but the simple fact it was announced doesn't make it worthy of Wikipedia. If that were the case, there would be a lot of bizarre and misleading articles from many questionable governments. Please delete. TeamZissou 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTE:
Additionally, hoaxes are meant as jokes, or for personal fame, etc. IMOD is not a hoax--it's piece of propaganda that's part of a larger propaganda effort to keep people controlled and the government of Iran in power. This isn't a "hoax in science"--it's political tool. How can this not be obvious to anyone who reads the information on it--especially from the sources' only source: Fars. TeamZissou 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, and ban article creator. DS 12:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] William Everleigh[edit]Appears to be unverifiable. I couldn't find any trace of Everleigh's work anywhere and in fact I couldn't find any trace of a professor by the name of James Hargreaves at Leicester university. The whole article reads more like a hoax than anything. Pascal.Tesson 06:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Espresso Addict 17:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Emotional link[edit]
This page seems to be an explanation of a long algorithm used by a proprietary music recommendation system. I would have speedied it under WP:CSD#G12 but I can't understand enough about it to know where the advertising for the Qbox.com ends and the algorithm begins, or vice versa. For an online service or system, there's precious little online via Google or Yahoo about it or the company who has it. Qbox returns several thousand hits, but Qbox and "emotional link" return less than 20, most of which are in (I think) Japanese. On top of that, the article has only one source, a journal article at the bottom of the page. Is this a major scientific concept about which I'm unaware, is it too obscure for the encyclopedia, is it advertising for the company, or is it some combination of the three? -- KrakatoaKatie 06:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tkoom 15:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Victory Park, Dallas, Texas[edit]
This appears to be nothing more than an urban regeneration development site and the article is written like a sales brochure for prospective tenants. The development may be impressive, but is it notable? Developments and urban regeneration schemes like this are going on all over America, all over Britain and, I guess, all over the world. What makes this spectacular other than it has some impressive tennants. This isn't a district or town, it is a commercial development within a district or town and therefore, unless evidence to the contrary (and I can't see any in the article) it is not notable and should be deleted from wikipedia. B1atv 06:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Chick Bowen 02:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Invisible Man (band)[edit]Invisible Man (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) Band doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC in terms of notability. Also seems to be pure promotional. -WarthogDemon 06:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The band's main member has clearly played with a lot of other bands/artists, but so have hundreds of session musicians around the world, none of whom merit encyclopedia articles. When/if the band progresses beyond CD-R releases and local bar gigs, maybe a better article could be created.--Michig 20:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chaz Coats-Butcher 10\09\2007
The result was delete. GRBerry 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Film fights[edit]No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 06:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep after rewrite. Chick Bowen 02:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Isle of the Ape[edit]
This gaming supplement has no independent sources to demonstrate notability.--Gavin Collins 05:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as confused WP:OR; I have also blocked all the sockpuppet accounts. Sandstein 21:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Spiritual Agnosticism[edit]
The problem with lack of outside sources has been corrected. In addition to adding an "See Also" section earlier, I have just now added an "External Links" section. This effectively answers complaints of OR that led to nomination for deletion.Kpkambo 02:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems non-notable, could be merged into main agnosticism article. şœśэїŝәқι 05:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep what does that even mean? whatever, i think that spiritual agnosticism brings up some great points. we can leave an unreferenced tag like jordan said instead of deleting it. plenty of articles (including the agnostic main page) have such tags, but they are not deleted. i don't know y this dethmeow wants to delete the article so badly.Velvetluvr 22:14, 9 October 2007
this article rocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:68.209.121.58 (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. Chick Bowen 02:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Dianna Abdala[edit]
Person is not notable. This person's only claim to fame is that she sent an embarrassing email that was circulated on the Internet. Jacobsor 05:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was a snowball Keep--JForget 01:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting[edit]
This book of gaming instructions has no independent source demonstrating notability. --Gavin Collins 05:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Miniature Ingestible Capsule and redirect Wireless capsule endoscopy to capsule endoscopy; any content that has merit may be merged from the history. Sandstein 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Miniature Ingestible Capsule[edit]
There are three articles on capsule endoscopy that this author has created. It has been shown that the author has a conflict of interest and is the father of a capsule endoscope inventor. The author has also admitted to plagiarism, which he subsequently deleted on another Talk page. I suggest that out of the three articles, capsule endoscopy be left and the other two deleted, as the term itself is what is generally used in medical literature. Cyborg Ninja 04:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ingestible Capsule is the broader and oldest name used by many since 50's.If you like,I can give references.Even Given Imaging used Ingestible Capsule wordings in their press releases.NASA has used it including a few movies. Capsule Endoscopy is one use of Ingestible Capsule. The reason for mentioning patents is--To inform public at large that There are three groups claiming to be inventors of this technology.At the request of Olympus Corp.,US Patent office rejected claims1,2,3 and 11 of Iddan(now owned by Given)patents in 2006.SO PLEASE DO NOT BECOME THE JUDGE--let the Court Jury decide in 2/3 years. Also future developments and applications need to be mentioned--as the use of Capsule camera along with other gadgets will make Endoscopy,Colonoscopy,Surgery truly REVOLUTIONARY.Imagine--a doctor in California operating on a patient in New York using these advancements.
PLEASE LET PUBLIC see all the information for 2/3 years--Wikipedia is the only place where you can find complete and true information with many references.
After 2/3 years,this technology will mature,then Wikipedia can chose the topics to keep or delete.
For example,If you are researcher,these articles give you in one place lot of information.If you are an investor--you want to know the Patent disputes and legal spending.As an investor ,you want to know this technology in the future time line--is it where Microsoft or Genentech or Amgen or Heart Surgery or Breast Cancer detection was 10 to 20 years ago.For Colon Cancer detection,current colonoscopy is invasive unlike Beast cancer.But Using Capsule Camera,you could prescreen millions for Polyps that become cancerous.
Thanks,Dr.Satinder Mullick--author of famous Harvard Business Review article in July 1971 on Forecasting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 15:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Miniature Ingestible Capsule and redirect Wireless capsule endoscopy to capsule endoscopy; any content that has merit may be merged from the history. Sandstein 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Wireless capsule endoscopy[edit]
There are three articles on Capsule Endoscopy that this author has created. It has been shown that the author has a conflict of interest and is the father of a capsule endoscope inventor. The author has also admitted to plagiarism, which he subsequently deleted on the Talk page. I suggest that out of the three articles, Capsule Endoscopy be left and the other two deleted, as the term itself is what is generally used in medical literature. Cyborg Ninja 04:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] The person objecting does not have the facts right.Three different persons created the articles on Wireless Capsule endoscopy,Miniature Ingestible Capsule and Capsule Endoscopy. As stated earlier,Europeans have named it Wireless Capsule endoscopy.This is perhaps the oldest writeup in wikipedia.Then came Miniature Ingestible Capsule after the invention/patent were issued that encampass Endoscopy/Colonoscopy and other uses.There are a few patents patents for different applications. Then someone wrote another wikipedia on Capsule endoscopy--a term now used by professional doctors/researchers in the US.Japanese inventors/developers are using this title also as evident from Olympus patent and Sayaka Capsule. Because this technology is evolving for different applications--it is better to leave all three articles without prejudging--as Wikipedia searchers could search for different KEYWORDS. Let the Courts or judges or scientific community decide which is the broadest title.US Gastroentrologists are drifting to "Capsule Endoscopy",but others are using Wireless or Ingestible Capsule.DO NOT BE IN HASTE!!!! As far as CLEANUP--IT is worth doing--without destroying any information that may be good information for Wikipedia readers. All these articles are presenting facts about inventions,developments and the future of this very exciting developments.Anyone opposing should be mindful that these article give many facts unavailable to a large community of readers who may want know what is going on in this area.Obviously Given Imaging and Olympus Corp. have their own publicity articles which are biased--but none of them mentions of other developments or legal cases.These Wikipedia articles gives reference to Given,Olympus,Sayaka articles in addition to all patents,major research papers and patents .Wikipedia source has everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Someone changed the writeup for CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY on Oct.4th,2007--and excluded all the references except SAYAKA new CAPSULE.THAT IS UNFAIR writeup.Sayaka is a great Capsule but so are EndoCapsule by Olympus and PillCam by Given.ALL the information about this technology and developers should be INCLUDED. PLEASE REFRAIN from DELETING COMPLETE INFORMATION in fairness for millions of users. Wikipedia is an important source for different users .So please do not delete references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SatinderMullick (talk • contribs) 22:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep both (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Way Out West (producers)[edit]
The only assert of notability is that a song was used in two TV shows. Also nominating the redirect:
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Jonny L[edit]Only notable for being signed to XL Recordings. Tasc0 03:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Both sides of this deletion debate have some legitimate arguments, and it is clear to me that there is no consensus to delete or keep the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] UFC 79[edit]Crystal clear case of crystalballing (sorry). No information is available on the event except for a tentative date provided by DirecTV's advertising department. east.718 at 02:38, October 4, 2007
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Argus Rentals[edit]
It looks more like an advertisement than an encyclopaedia article. "We rent cars, here are our websites." I also note from comments on the talk page that "Argus Car Hire" has been speedied several times. It may be a candidate for speedy, but as I anticipate contention I'm going for AfD instead. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Pretend Genius[edit]
belatedly contested prod, article restored: prod concern was: "The topic may not meet the general notability guidelines and the article may be deleted if not edited to include reliable source material. To meet the general notability guidelines, please add material from reliable sources that are independent of Pretend Genius" with which I agree, so Delete. Carlossuarez46 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Elbow bondage[edit]
Completely lacking in references. No secondary material to confirm that this is a notable element of BDSM. Without sources fails WP:V and amounts to pure original research. WjBscribe 01:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to bondage, mention there if claims can be verified. W.marsh 22:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Hair bondage[edit]Non-notable bondage term. No references make this article pure OR and without discussion in reliable secondary sources its impossible to judge whether this is something that should have an article. WjBscribe 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. CitiCat ♫ 03:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Bittersweet Poetry[edit]
The above songs are not notable by themselves. They are merely tracks off an album. At most, they should be mentioned in the album page. Spellcast 00:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect all. --Aarktica 12:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum[edit]AfDs for this article:
Fails the criteria set out by WP:MUSIC#Songs on every level. It didn't chart, has won no awards, not noteworthy, hasn't been performed by any other groups or artists and hasn't been covered by independent works. I have searched for sources and have come up with nothing. Seraphim Whipp 00:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; these articles contain content not suitable for an encyclopedia (as they stand). The fact that notability is "WP:JUSTAGUIDELINE" doesn't mean that it can be disregarded; these articles do fail the relevant outlined notability guideline. Complete lack of proof of notability is a valid reason for deletion as found at WP:DEL#REASON. I'm not prejudiced to recreation, in fact the opposite, when sources have been found that is exactly what should happen. I just think these articles were created prematurely and don't comply with our encylopedic standards.
The result was speedy delete. Spellcast 03:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Streaming Festival[edit]
No notability asserted. Girolamo Savonarola 00:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Yomanganitalk 23:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Audrey Walker[edit]NN actress. Fails WP:BIO. Has appeared in a few episodes of a TV series and a few movies in minor roles. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Consensus is that there is insufficient reliable source material independent of South Park. -- Jreferee t/c 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Kyle's Mom Is a Stupid Bitch (in D-Minor)[edit]
Original research; only citation is a youtube copyright violation. Chick Bowen 00:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 22:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Shadow Klan[edit]Independent musician, has self-published some recordings, no real assertion of notability beyond having had a song played on the radio and having been interviewed at least once. Certainly does not seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Stormie 05:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 13:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Blethyrag[edit]Probable hoax. No evidence "Blethyrag" is a word: see [86] Rumping 21:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:SNOW. I think it needs some salt for now, too.KrakatoaKatie 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] Audrey Walker[edit]
This article was previously deleted, but the user who re-created this article blanked that discussion [87]. The new art was tagged speedy, but the creator also removed that. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
|