The result was keep. — Malcolm (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestion that this website has been covered in non-trivial detail in reliable published sources. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Declined speedy. --Finngall talk 23:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There no assertion of notability and a quick websearch doesn't turn up anything that indicates that the subject of the article meets WP:CORP, including the company profile. --Ed (Edgar181) 19:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to University of Coimbra. MastCell Talk 20:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an unsourced blurb about a homecoming festival from some Portuguese university. I see nothing to distinguish it from thousands of similar parties across the world. I might as well write an article about the homecoming festival at my own college. VegitaU 23:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent)Reply: This article isn't about "Latada", "Latada Coimbra", or any other Portuguese festivity. This article is about "Festa das Latas", a homecoming parade not unlike many around the world. There is nothing to distinguish it above others. The fact that it may be a big deal in that town doesn't identify it as exceptional. Homecoming parades are big deals in every town where they're held. At Oxford, Harvard, and my own college; people come out to celebrate and welcome alumni back. They go to games, they view parades, they dance, and the have fun. Sorry, but the argument that a local town parade where you tie tin cans to the freshmen's legs is comparable to Mardi Gras or Carnival doesn't wash. -- VegitaU 02:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable autobiography. No WP:RS to indicate satisfying WP:BIO. Leuko 23:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. She doesn't warrant her own article right now, but should something change, there can certainly be one about her in the future. WODUP 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classic case of a person being notable for just one event and, in accordance with policy, she should solely be covered in the event article, Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Redirect. TerriersFan 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non- notable dicdef. The only source listed is this one, which mentions NSGS but does little to clarify what it is: [1]
At least I could find the following dicdef here: [2] "The Network Status Gathering System (NSGS) is the component that queries the network to determine its status. Among the information returned by the NSGS there is a “loss of signal” alarm that indicates that the queried device did not answer a ping (ICMP echo requests) and the latency of the ping when it succeeds. The NSGS can also query SNMP objects." No other sources for this term show up on google other than Wikipedia and mirror sites. Essentially, an NSGS is a "status checker" for a network, and it does not seem to refer to any specifically coded "status checker," but rather seems to be used as a generic term any time a network engineer has put his or her own "status checker" in place. It appears that this subject has not received notable coverage as a topic, and there would never be anything more than a dicdef. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a technical manual. OfficeGirl 23:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, notability concerns seem to have been addressed, consensus seems satisfied by the sources added. WilyD 20:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Article is totally unsourced. Could possibly be redirected to web log but seems too nebulous even for that. —ptk✰fgs 22:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Triathlon. — Malcolm (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content already exists on the Triathlon page. Rahzel 22:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — TKD::Talk 08:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Out of all of the films listed, as few as there are, only two have articles. All the others are dead links. There is no discussion of the film industry in Angola. This is essentially an empty page, copied from Imdb and given Wiki formatting. There are not enough articles to justify making a category either. Perspicacite 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Maxim(talk) 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - directory of non-associated topics. The items have absolutely no relationship to one another past happening to all mention the name "Jayne Mansfield." Otto4711 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician/composer/programmer/producer. Entire text of article asserts that "Jan Pulsford is a behind the scenes musician/composer/programmer and producer, toured as keyboard player with Thompson Twins and Cyndi Lauper, produced and co-wrote Cyndi Lauper's Sisters of Avalon Merry Christmas . . have a Nice Life." Co-writing and touring with notable artists does not confer notability, see WP:NOTINHERITED. A page on this musician/composer/programmer and producer was created on Sept 6 by someone with the username "Promokitz", and it was speedily deleted for copyvio, as it was a reprinting of the bio on the artist's MySpace page. The username "Promokitz" was reported as a possible promotional business name and subsequently blocked. Shortly thereafter P strayhorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made his or her first edit to re-create this page without the copyvio. It was tagged for speedy deletion, but speedy deletion was denied. Bringing it here for discussion and consensus. OfficeGirl 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster 01:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. DGG says, "Howard Hughes is a legendary figure..." That's true, and it is why Wikipedia has an article on the man. There is a difference, though, between being famous (which causes one to appear in popular culture) and being "significant to popular culture." This subtle difference is best perceived through sources: are there any books discussing "Howard Hughes' transforming influence on popular culture"? There are none cited. (In contrast, see Elvis Presley, where at least five such books are referenced, and I have another three on my shelf that are not.) This is not to denigrate Hughes' influence, but only to suggest that one cannot discuss his influence in appropriate encyclopedic tone without such sources. Sources are what distinguishes genuine "in popular culture" articles from mere "trivia collections", and the consensus is that they are absent here. What content is here should be easily merged to Howard Hughes, if it isn't already, and I will gladly restore with that purpose in mind on request. An independent article is unwarranted until sources come to light.
Delete - similar to the deleted list for Bill Gates. The entire second section on fictional characters who supposedly may have been in some way fashioned on Hughes is original research and the third section on references in songs is trivia. The only worthwhile portion is the section on portrayals of Hughes on film and I have added that information to Howard Hughes. This is unsupportable as a separate article and should be deleted. Otto4711 22:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to he a pointless list of celebrities who include their middle names in credits etc. I see no purpose for this article and believe it should be deleted. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something odd about this. "Reenactor Entertainment" only gets 136 Google hits, mighty low for a supposed award-winning video game manufacturer, and "Metroid Prime 3 Corruption" was made by another company altogether. Corvus cornix 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn as dumb by nominator to nominate. • Lawrence Cohen 22:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
:Marie Agba-Otikpo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Appears to be a non-notable African politician. Delete. • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing silly nomination. Keep. • Lawrence Cohen 22:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 20:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable corporation selling a line of bicycle. Searched around for sourcing on them, but when several Google searches all turn to advertisements on EBay and Craigslist selling their personal Javelins on the first page of results, it's not that notable. Delete, please. • Lawrence Cohen 21:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. MastCell Talk 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as A1, but has plenty of context. Is this worth keeping? Feels like it to me. Daniel Case 01:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Could be recreated after the album comes out and is supported by independent, reliable sources - assuming this is in fact the album title. MastCell Talk 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google results show nothing for this. Completely unsourced. Metros 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a difficulty finding consensus on whether play in an American minor league team constitutes notability. The present proposal seems to suggest AAA is but this player is in A league. Further, there is a problem with any verification or reliable sources. JodyB yak, yak, yak 20:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca 03:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was created months ago by single-purpose account 1313wang (talk · contribs) and probably should have been deleted long ago. It does not cite references, is disorganized, is written in an inappropriate tone, and fails WP:BAND. Shalom Hello 20:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rather unencyclopedic and unverifiable. At least a merge with Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Pats1 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 21:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability to come Chealer 20:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 21:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like it was copied from somewhere, though I couldn't find the source. Regardless, this is a how-to, not an encyclopedia article. Corvus cornix 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The previous AfD's of such lists provide a general precedent, though not a binding one. Arguments for deletion were convincing. If there is irreplaceable material lost with this deletion that an editor wishes to merge into other Harry Potter articles, let me know and I can see about providing it. MastCell Talk 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a recitation of plot summary from the Harry Potter books and has no other information. The article basically says nothing that isn't plot summary, has no notability, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus - there really does not appear to be any degree of consensus here. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:CORP. No independent references are cited for this product; and Google returns mainly ads and shopping sites (who would have thought). A comment on the talk page suggests that the topic had been on the Requested Articles list, however, so I think this should receive a thorough discussion. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 19:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Maxim(talk) 01:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company that uses Wikipedia as a way to advertise. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RegCure Bahustard 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. This article needs references, some of which have been cited in the AfD. Tyrenius 19:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by IP. Article is about a very non-notable subject. An abstract artist is not necessarily notable, even if she has some gallery showings. The article says nothing about her minor awards, and it is unsourced other than the links to her paintings. No pages link to this article, and her g-hits are rather low. Reywas92Talk 19:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
The result was No consensus. Maxim(talk) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software from a company that uses Wikipedia as an advertising avenue. See RegCure Bahustard 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. MastCell Talk 21:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as "pure vandalism" which is probably a pretty solid overstatement. Nevertheless, seems poorly researched, if researched at all and there's a distinct possibility that this is a hoax of sorts. Pascal.Tesson 19:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 06:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unneeded trivial info, wikipedia isn't a sports alamac, see WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT, prod removed, Delete Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 19:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school. Minor trade school in India. No references found on google other than the schools own website. OfficeGirl 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This convo has been copied from the talk page:
WP:N states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This church is referred to in a wide range of local history books and other resources. The article just happens to be a stub, and no editor has yet been able to expand the content and add the references in question - but, after all, that's what stubs are all about! Waggers 08:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Montchav 18:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep for now...don't you feel you're jumping the gun? Yes, I posted that, I speedy-tagged it, but his comment implies he can assert notability. Give the guy a chance to get some notability into it. --UsaSatsui 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 03:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software from a company of questionable quality; has several pages in this vein, all obviously used for advertising. See RegCure. Bahustard 19:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --Stefan talk 15:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software; written like an advertisement Bahustard 19:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a recitation of the plot of various harry potter books from an in-universe perspective. As the books cover the plot in their respective articles, this is entirely duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 19:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Maxim(talk) 14:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks sources demonstrating notability. Tagged for such sources since June 2006. I looked but couldn't find appropriate sources to add. FisherQueen (Talk) 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Xoloz 17:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable footbag game. Even if it was mentioned in Footbag magazine 12 years ago (and the citation doesn't link to any discussion of this game), that's not enough. Also, see WP:NFT. NawlinWiki 18:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP, national TV newscasters are noteable. Rlevse 15:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a non-notable fashion model. Third party sources all but do not exist: [14], and the only claim to notability in the article is from the subject's own website. Thus fails WP:V and probably WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca 00:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certain conflict of interest (compare the name of the subject's grandson with the author's username), pure original research, and zero google hits (two from Wikipedia, but that's it). An impressive set of medals and no doubt a fine soldier, but non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:MILHIST. PC78 18:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This person (a terrorist victim) is notable only for one event. Sad as her fate has been, the article should not be on Wikipedia per WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:MEMORIAL, and (in a slight extension) WP:BLP1E.
As a marginally relevant side note: Someone predicted in the last AfD in 2005 that the Google hit count for her name (then 15,800) would decrease. Today it's 2190. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 18:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to Dragon Ball Z. Most people here consider the secondary sources mentioned reliable enough to mention the film, but in the context of the main Dragon Ball Z article for now, until/unless the film gains more notability. — TKD::Talk 07:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The creation of this article was not based on fact but on mere rumors on the internet. 20th Century Fox has never confirmed that the movie would be made, and they have released a statement in which they specifically refused to confirm the so-called new "info" from the Montreal Gazette on which this article is based. Currently, there's nothing substanciated about this supposed DB movie. Another rumor has popped up on the net last week (as dozens have, during the last 6 years), but it is not enough to revive this article. Currently no one -not even Fox- can confirm the allegations of the article from the Montreal Gazette, and until more concrete and official elements are made public, it remains a possible hoax. So, according to 2 criteria in the "reasons for deletion" policy ("Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed"), the article should be deleted Folken de Fanel 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are pretty good at lying, because last time i checked, variety is a reliable source. just because you don't think that it is a reliable source doesn't mean that it isn't a reliable fource. Opinions and facts are two totally different things. plus, that comment you left on my usertalk page was completly innapropriate. i haven't been lying, if anything, you have. stop personally attacking people. -cman7792
my behavior, whatever i wont even go there but it is funny that you say that. the adf page is for fact on wether the dragonballz live action film article should be merged or not, no one cares about your personal feelings. if there is something you want to say, say it on my discussion page, not here --Cman7792 22:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see enough concrete. This page could be deleted after the dragonballz live action film info is put into the dragonall z page. one of the sections on the page would be dragonballz live action film. that would be a merge and this is what we all want. you could have your opinion but you are looking for the wrong thing. -cman7792
There is alot of concrete. fox refused to comment on the montreal newspaper because they probably would like to announce it in a better way. if fox wasn't going to make the movie, they would of denied the news, not by not commenting. this article should be merged for now--Cman7792 23:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What unsubstanciated rumors. The stuff about the dragonball z live action movie being filmed in montreal is true. Get your facts straight. you want proof that it is true. the montreal gazzeter which is an official newpaper in montreal canada claims it. i could picture the movie being made in montreal. this way fox doesn't have to pay as much taxes on the film-cman7792 Look, Folken de Fanel, everyone wants this film to be merged with the dragonballz page besides you. Look how many people agree with me rather than you:
Unlike you, i don't personally attack people. But the point is that it was confirmed by montreal that the movie would be filmed there. all you care about is that fox didn't officially anounce it, but they would of denied it if it wasn't true. you have to look at more than one fact. stop being so black and white. --Cman7792 00:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The gazetter is a real source, so as the hollywood reporter. Newspapers and the nespaper's websites don't lie. the author must of gotten the information from somewhere. besides, fox never never denied that the film is in work. they just didn't say who the director is yet because they don't have a director yet, nor do they have a script, unless if they used the old one from 5 years ago when the film get cancelled when the film was in pre production. once fox hires people to work on the movie, more information will be revealed. add the info from dragonball z live action film to dragonallz article for now and if it turns out that it is a rumor, then it could be deleted. -cman7792
funny how you claim that all the newspapers are lying about this movie. newspapers don't copy each other, they get information from RELIABLE sources. but enough about newspapers. you can't prove they are lying, and most of the time newspapers don't lie. Now lets get back on topic. Add the dragonballz live action film info into the dragonballz article now, and if it turns up that it was just a rumor then it could be deleted.
--Cman7792 23:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. — TKD::Talk 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician, only claim is being the brother of Clint Black. While Clint passes WP:MUSIC easily, Kevin unfortunately flunks.
I'm also nominating Kevin's album:
Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merged relevant non crystal info into Treatment of Crohn's disease#Research on medications in progress and Psoriasis#Future_drug_development, with a redirect to Treatment of Crohn's disease#Research on medications in progress as suggested by User:Espresso Addict. Gnangarra 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable test drug. Article states it may be approved by FDA in 2010. WP:CRYSTAL OfficeGirl 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who suffers from crohn's disease, I can tell you that this drug is very notable and offers a promising treatment using anti-interleukin therapy. Slyfoxman7 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— Slyfoxman7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was delete and redirect to pit bull. KrakatoaKatie 18:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a recent name used by some hobbyists to describe all bulldog/pit bull type dogs, or ones which are bred with abnormally large heads. Doesn't appear particularly notable as a term. No reasonable media/ASPCA/dog show coverage that I could find. I wanted to redirect it to whatever would be a good landing page for this sort of breed, but nothing appears to fit. So delete for no notability, and nowhere to really redirect the phrase too. It seems the phrase gets enough action to merit a redirect somewhere, but darned if I can spot where. Will happily withdraw deletion request if someone can dig up sourcing or a good place to send this page. Also reads like an advertisement for unaturally big-headed dogs, for what it is worth. • Lawrence Cohen 17:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. "Its official website has not been launched yet or has still not been announced." Cited only to a blog. NawlinWiki 18:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible advert, but at the least, no sourcing for notability or the various claims in the article. TexasAndroid 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, given the improvements made to the articleduring the course of the discussion. Xoloz 17:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN, fails WP:PROF and non-notable relations of possible notables don't need their own article. Yeshivish 16:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete Not notable (and I'm a QC alum) Avi 13:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per withdrawal of nomination. Non-admin closure.--JForget 22:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable college professor. No sources, not able to verify, only a handful of relevant Google hits. Amazingly, this article has been around for five years. Realkyhick 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Maxim(talk) 13:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not reveal importance of subject. Fails WP:BIO. AmerHisBuff 16:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was to delete. Maxim(talk) 13:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable novelty product. Not enough context, no sources. Author did remove links to websites selling these items, but that's not enough to save this. (I'm sure some of you creative types will have some very interesting messages to go with your votes.) Realkyhick 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I add links for sources and he flags it spam. Who dictates what is "Non-Notable", these have been contested on the senate floor and debated on capital hill. Every edit I do, this guy just has a problem with - I believe its because he has a personal feeling against the product which is hindering his ability to let the information exist.
SO, once again, if I add links for sources, he flags as spam. He alone is determining what is notable and not. Talk about censorship and the god complex, this guy is purely nuts! Edhartel 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In universe article on a fake book created as a promotion for the comicbook Doktor Sleepless. Speedy deletion as spam was declined. Artw 16:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently an advert for a non-notable shop; however, given the claimed press & TV coverage, not sending it off to the ((prod)) mulcher in case I'm making a wrong assumption and it's of significance to the goth scene. — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of repeated requests to supply 3rd party/independent sources to verify notability the author's creator has failed to do so. Originally up for a spam CSD the article was rewritten slightly and the CSD was removed. 2850 ghits although a proportion of those are retail sources. The article's creator is one of the firm's progenitors so there is also a problem of WP:COI. Author removed prod. Frequently uses the WP:WAX argument in relation to Black's Law Dictionary. WebHamster 15:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Sandstein 19:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pure advertising/spam. The article's body is just a small paragraph and seems to be a simple excuse to list two dozens of external links on the page. Note that the article was speedy-deleted twice already before this third recreate. Kariteh 14:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt to use Wikipedia to kick-start publicity by Chris Dotson and Chrishan. "SoundClick" is basically a MySpace knockoff (and not a nationally notable chart), the reference links do not contain any mention of the song or album and wouldn't meet WP:MUSIC even if they did.
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/17 (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrishan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventeen (Chrishan album), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He Ain't Gonna and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Dotson Inc. - Richfife 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy A7'd. Fang Aili talk 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Prod tag removed by anon. Recommend delete Dchall1 14:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating as a primary author of the article. This is one of those "Years ago I was dumb and young and made an article about an insignificant topic" dealies. Why, you may ask, did I make it? Heck, the answer is simple: I think Horance kicks Sephy's butt. =) Yes, it could be argued that here we have a game character who appeared in two games in a major computer game series, so that would be keep-worthy, but basically, this article boils down to a plot summary that's more about the game plot than the character background and how it relates to the game, and if you really think of the character, he's not a major character at all, but clear merge material if even that. Basically, we now have an Ultima wikia article, and the Ultima wikia is probably a better place for "kind of important" characters (as opposed to "very important" characters, of which we do have justifiable articles). I assure you we will lose little if this article is deleted as is, and I'm going to eventually write a better plot summary for Ultima VII article. wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. A member of WP:JEW nominated this article for deletion and other Jewish editors who had an opinion on this page support deletion. I looked at all the sources and I do not believe the subject is notable, but I'm not Jewish. Since the majority of the WP:JEW editors who added an opinion here – indeed, most editors who gave their opinions here – agree with deletion, consensus is achieved. KrakatoaKatie 19:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BIO I'm not sure if he's notable enough for a Wiki entry Yossiea (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, This subject has numerous outside third party sources from respected and reliable newspapers, universities, organizations, who say that he is notable. if a few users claim to the contrary they should at-least bring one reliable argument why he isn't worth a biography.--יודל 18:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and move Agony (disambiguation) to Agony. The sole recommendation to keep doesn't address the dictionary definition issue. — TKD::Talk 06:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. This should be a subhead in Pain, not a separate article. Reinistalk 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article concerns a non-notable individual. Jameboy 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete; may be transferred to Wiktionary in some form. - Mike Rosoft 13:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.. CitiCat ♫ 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable independent film. These guys have been spamming List of zombie films, George A. Romero and Diary of the Dead for almost a year. There is no actual movement behind this film. It is the filmmakers spreading word on various message boards and asking others to spam Wikipedia on their behalf. It had a very small showing in England in a single theater and then went direct to (self-financed) DVD. Nothing of note here. IrishGuy talk 12:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - after reviewing the article, and the comments given; one states a weak keep, claiming "mild notability". The other keep makes an exceedingly weak argument based on red links. The delete comments, however, make remarks that are seen to be true within the article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another phone catalog entry. Non-notable phone, only references at present are a blog entry (!) and a review. Wikipedia is not a catalog, nor a directory. Mikeblas 12:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 12:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-notability Chris 12:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, as no reliable third-party coverage was found for the AFD. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 00:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another phone review. Uncited list of features, uncited list of "complaints". Reads like an advert or a review. Only sources are reviews, which are not substantial. Mikeblas 12:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was cut. er, I mean delete. Had a "brief tryout" with the Jags. CitiCat ♫ 00:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NN former college football player, tried-out but never recieved an offer from the Jaguars, thus never played in the NFL. Owns all those school records because the football team existed for only five years. Delete Jaranda wat's sup 00:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 00:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Survived an earlier AfD, but I'm not quite sure how. Yes, there are sources, but all they seem to do is prove the place exists — I can't see how this warrants an article. Orphaned stub article, and seems to have been since its creation, with no sign of anyone expanding it for a year — iridescent (talk to me!) 02:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WjBscribe 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 21:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Individual track from an as yet unreleased album. Does not pass the proposed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC Kevin 09:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete Mr.Z-man 03:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indie rock band whose article hints at assertions for notability. They imply that they've toured nationally but don't actually say so. There is an alleged tour planned for later this year. They only have one released CD which doesn't appear to have charted in any major chart. 725 ghits (using search term "coyote bones" -blog). CSD was denied due to slight assertions. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BAND WebHamster 11:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being failing to research the band further and thus exercising an elitist stance on false deductions. The band is linked directly to Tilly and the Wall's page and The Anniversary. Not to mention the amount of national and international coverage the band has. As for the touring, would you like an excel sheet of the tour history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgreatwaves (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. You learn something new everyday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgreatwaves (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article is a collection of lists, and serves as a content fork with History_of_Rush#The_early_days_.281968.E2.80.931974.29. THe lists were removed by consensus[39] from Rush (band), at which time they were taken to this new article. ThuranX 11:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Product page for another run-of-the-mill cellular phone. Contains lists of features, just like an advertisement. No claim to notability, no interesting information about the phone's design methodology or history. Only links are product reviews (and "previews"!), which are not substantial. Just product catalog fodder. Mikeblas 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to the new article 1993 CIA shootings per Thomjakobsen's suggestion at the bottom of this discussion. The subject is notable only for his involvement in that event (see also WP:BLP1E). Sandstein 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CIA doctor killed by a foreign nation. This seems to be as far as his notability extends. Other than that he was just one of many other Government employees of similar anonymity. This article doesn't appear to meet the criteria for WP:BIO. 1060ghits mostly of news reports of the assassination though most only mention him in passing and discuss the wider issues. Some of those hits relate to the name of a Forest. WebHamster 11:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comments revised slightly Mrs.EasterBunny 19:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: generally the phrase "notability is not temporary" means that if someone is notable at some point that does not go away and they may have an article as an historically notable person (say, a minor figure in the Watergate scandal). --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This guy/article was very notable in 1993. E343ll 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]I saw the William R. Higgins article that you created a few years ago. Do you have any tips about notability? I've written an article about Lansing Bennett which is going to be deleted for lack for notability (see comments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lansing_Bennett ). Bennett was killed in the 1993 attack on the CIA, sometimes noted as the first incident of Islamic terrorism in North America. If Bennett is judged to be not notable, Higgins is similarly at risk. Again, I am not canvassing but merely asking for your advice on achieving notability. Mrs.EasterBunny 16:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Big_iron"
My suggestion would be to look at Wikipedia:Notability for ideas: establishing that there has been "significant coverage" in reliable, independent sources appears to be key. There is also Wikipedia:Notability (people) which provides additional criteria for articles about people. Note that my original contribution to the William R. Higgins article was only at the stub level and I think that contributions by other editors have been more important in establishing notability for that subject. I hope that this is helpful. --Big_iron 09:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that it was 30 days after the Higgins article was started did others contribute to it. In contrast, there have already been other editors editing the Lansing Bennett article. Also note that Big_iron believes the Higgins article is notable and, by the same logic, Lansing Bennett would be notable. There is a possibility of consensus but I'll let this AFD proceed first before proposing the concensus compromise. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 10:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely non-notable company: entry is in effect spam. Was previously prodded by user GRBerry and deprodded by user Necrothesp Springnuts 11:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. WjBscribe 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article recently underwent a Featured Article Review, which defaulted to keep due to an overall lack of consensus (7 keep votes, 6 remove). Technically, it still has its bronze badge. But a content review like FAR cannot address the more fundamental issue—notability—without running in circles (participants tend to presume notability in such discussions). In the review, the article's primary author and defender, wrote "Any subject deserving an article deserves a featured article." But before we can test whether the article deserves to be featured, we must test whether the subject deserves the article. WP:AFD is the most sensible place to do so.
So, does Babylon 5's spoo deserve an article? It doesn't appear to.
1. Fails the general notability guideline. Spoo does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; the article relies almost entirely on primary sources, roughly divided between the self-published thoughts of Babylon 5 creator J. Michael Straczynski and the episodes themselves. There is not one third-party newspaper, book, magazine, or television or radio documentary cited that asserts spoo is notable outside of the 6 out of 110 episodes of Babylon 5 it appeared in, outside of the half-dozen comments Straczynski posted about it to USENET, or outside of fan websites, forums, and blogs—let alone significant coverage. (Some secondary sources are used within the first paragraph of the "Real-world etymology of the word" section, but they refer to random uses of the term spoo that predate and have no demonstrated connection to Babylon 5. In the FAR, several participants voiced their concern over this irrelevant information, but Jeffrey O. Gustafson has refused its removal.)
2. Fails the fiction notability guideline. Due to the lack of third-party sources, the article focuses too much on the fictional aspects and inadequately describes the real-world aspects of the concept—critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, merchandise, etc. Straczynski's posts offer little insight into the real-world aspects, as they are mostly written from the perspective of the fiction.
3. Fails the no original research policy. The article employs original research methods in an attempt to make up for the lack of third-party sources. Wikipedians stringing together and interpreting primary sources that they found in a USENET archive or forum is conducting original research. There is no editorial oversight from credible, professional publishers that indicates that these USENET posts are worthy of anyone's attention. Jimbo Wales himself cited spoo as a "very good example of a specatularly horrible use of original research. This is Wikipedians obsessed with trivia trying to be historians rather than encyclopedists. This should all be nuked from the encyclopedia with extreme prejudice, in my opinion."
(Please resist debating whether USENET posts are "authoritive"—whether we can trust that Straczynski actually made these posts. That debate was beaten to death throughout the recent Featured Article Review, and is unnecessary here.) Punctured Bicycle 08:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
— 84.190.207.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was No consensus to delete. Maxim(talk) 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a top 10 list which is copied from a website. It borders on advertising for both the source page as well as the registrars in the list. It may also raise a question of copyvio. Article history shows that attempts to change the format and function of the article have failed. Ham Pastrami 07:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 01:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same walled garden as Tropical Candy below: 4 albums in this case, no sources, no "Electric Fish" "Bone Fry" google hits whatsoever, as it seems. Heck, see the comprehensiveness of their own website. Duja► 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline A7: the band existed, recorded 2 albums for minor publishers, and disbanded. No refs, heck, not even Google = No article. Duja► 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 14:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to be about as good a example of OR as I have ever seen - I could be wrong though... Anarchia 07:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. CitiCat ♫ 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This nickname is not verifiable, and even if it were, there is not indication that this area is as such notable. Sandstein 07:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. If org. can later be shown to be notable, an article can be created. CitiCat ♫ 23:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
National Juvenile Justice Network, a nonprofit organization working with juvenile justice systems. Couldn't find any reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. If article is kept, should be renamed to National Juvenile Justice Network. ~Eliz81(C) 07:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G1 by Anonymous Dissident (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin close cab 09:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Total WP:HOAX, couldn't find any references, plus the creator made two other articles that were deleted. Although creator is inactive, perhaps an account block is in order... edits to existing pages consisted of vandalism. ~Eliz81(C) 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FICT, the article does not provide enough real-world information to justify notability. This is further reinforced by the lack of sources. Though the quality of an article is not solely a reason for deleting it, much of the content guide appears to be a how-to guide relating to this particular magic system, going into too much detail and hence violating WP:NOT#PLOT. Una LagunaTalk 06:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a recitation of other myths, coupled with plot summary from the Harry Potter books. The article basically says nothing, has no notability, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 06:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IvoShandor 15:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the obvious example for an in-universe featured list would be Narnian timeline. Serendipodous 15:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look. To solve this problem, this is what I will do: I will merge this article with Minor Harry Potter beasts and Magical beasts (Harry Potter) to create a single, giant "beasts" article. Much of the information in "Magical beasts" can be ditched anyway. I will then pepper this new article with as many Rowling quotes as I can find. Fair enough? Serendipodous 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Reasons for the prod were "crystal ball article, no references, no list of confirmed performers (invitations are meaningless), no google hits other than this page."[41] An IP editor subsequently changed 'invited' to 'confirmed', added a link to The Institute of Mental Resilience and a depression website, and removed the prod tag. I can find no mention of the Concert through these links, meaing they are not sources for the article, and throwing doubt on the "confirmed" edit. Pairadox 05:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to aftershock. — TKD::Talk 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable university student who dances as a hobby. Assertion that he is "up and coming." No sources given. Creator of article has had no other edits on Wikipedia. OfficeGirl 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete — Caknuck 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local public access television station. No sources given other than the station's own website. OfficeGirl 05:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where shall I start? Original research (because how could you possibly source that a video game item is unique?), unreferenced, listcruft. Just because this was requested on the Community Portal doesn't mean it deserves to live. Golbez 04:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A bit broad and unsourced. I also believe this falls under game guide content. RobJ1981 04:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete Keegantalk 04:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism Q T C 04:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
unverifiable content; likely WP:OR puff page as it was created by a User of the same name as the page. Maralia 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. No third-party, reliable sources or independent media coverage. Only claim of notability is that it received "4.5 stars on Download.com." A Google search shows no independent sources to verify the article. Delete. Boricuæddie 04:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mangojuicetalk 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, trivial and cluttered list. Just because something is featured in pop culture, doesn't mean it should be a list here. RobJ1981 04:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable tire and auto service company. Violates WP:SPAM. OfficeGirl 04:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable musician. There's nothing about her on google, other than this Wikipedia article. Barely any assertion of notability. No cited references of any kind OfficeGirl 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a spinoff from the main Gunslinger Girl character article, with no additional content or sources to back up the information. In addition, it does not follow naming conventions: there should not be Japanese script in the title, and the proper (scope) would be (Gunslinger Girl)—which already exists, since I moved and redirected this exact same article once before. Merging is not an option, since all the substantive information here is already in the main article; redirecting is not an option, since it is an unlikely search term (due to the Japanese script, which is just a transcription of "Henrietta" into katakana) that was once deleted under CSD R3; and proposed deletion is not an option, since this article under this title has been deleted once before, and the author seems likely to contest that process by recreating the article again; therefore, a proper deletion is the only option. —TangentCube, Dialogues 03:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT#INFO, as this list is quite indiscriminate. These people have nothing in common, except that they were young, and therefore, I fail to see why this list deserves inclusion. J-stan TalkContribs 02:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a middle school which does not have any notability nor those sources that assert it. Delete JForget 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I'm from the region of Ottawa, I do not see how this public elementary is notable - there is nothing that asserts it, just like many other elementary school. The notability tag has been there since April Delete. JForget 02:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS 14:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article was given a prod tag which I removed because it had be prodded before. Appears to fall under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day CitiCat ♫ 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 09:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contributer is a vandal who has added plausible sounding, but fake information to Wikipedia more than once. There is no WWE The Animated Series coming to Adult Swim. Madlobster 01:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N (especially WP:BAND) not satisfied. Article is in desperate need of cleanup and wikification. Of the 4 band members 3 are bluelinked, but two of those seem to be to wrong bio articles. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Needs more proof from independent and/or reliable sources to meet notability criteria. To the contrib: can you provide us with some? — Rickyrab | Talk 01:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete51 Google hits for+" Richard Hofherr" +" 7th Heaven" including Wikipedia. Review at Chicago Gigs.com does not suggest notability. Allmusic page does not have any info asserting meeting WP:MUSIC. Alexa rating for web page not in top 100,000. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contested expired prod, with concern of non-notability. Nihiltres(t.l) 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete all. --Coredesat 03:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These groups are talented, I'm sure, but they're not notable. It seems to be the equivalent of a high school band and/or orchestra group in the U.S. Some have been created, speedy deleted, then recreated more than once, and there should be a central debate about all.
I also nominate these articles:
Hampshire County Youth String Orchestra was speedy deleted a moment before I was going to list it here; if it shows up blue again, I'll include it here. - KrakatoaKatie 00:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. — TKD::Talk 08:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Musician who asserts notability but there are no references/citations per WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:BAND. 155 ghits. Author removed prod, no reason offered. Reason for nomination: non-notability WebHamster 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete due to lack of non-trivial coverage in third-party reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 08:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No sign of notability or reliable sources here or on google. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely notable, as it is entirely relevant to anyone practicing or considering practicing Youn Wha Ryu. Clear stone 00:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]
To understand the relevance of the image, you must understand the current controversy regarding Youn Wha Ryu. The purpose of this page is to state the 'facts' of both sides of the issue. The image is proof that the claim is not just made up. Clear stone 00:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Clear stone[reply]
To DBZ: The article is not a guide on how to do anything. It is a compiled item of research regarding the history, training techniques, people involved, important dates and events, and current events of Youn Wha Ryu. That is in my opinion entirely encyclopedic. There are similar articles for thousands of other martial arts of the exact template. If this isn't encyclopedic then none of the others are either and should be on the chopping block. Clear stone 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]
Would someone show how the thing is non-notable? Judging from a survey of the 1000-odd Google hits, there appears to be an organization in Missouri or something, and I am unsure of whether this is truly non-notable or not. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain a wide range of information; that is what an encyclopedia is there for - and this includes topics that some or even many may not find notable or relevant to their lives. The burden of proof ought to be on the lack of notability on something, not on showing how something is notable. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. satisfied Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.satisfied
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability. satisfied as they are all available and considered the foremost authority on the subject "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. satisfied as three are secondary "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. satisfied as 1/3 are sources independent of Youn Wha Satisfying this presumption of notability indicates a particular topic is worthy of notice, and may be included in the encyclopedia as a stand-alone article. Verifiable content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for merger with another article. satisfied simple by the sheer number of pages devoted to Youn Wha Ryu Clear stone 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Clear stone[reply]
The result was no consensus, the sources given are trivial mentions though, if that isn't fixed, the article can be renominated for deletion. Thanks. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 02:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet requirements at WP:BIO. Shell babelfish 00:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. — TKD::Talk 13:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Player does not meet notability requirements of WP:HOCKEY in that he has played less than a full season in a fully professional league and the majority of his experience was in semi-pro leagues. Djsasso 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. CitiCat ♫ 22:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Player does not even meet the rather lax WP:HOCKEY notability guidelines in that he has played less than 5 seasons in a high level minor league and has not even reached 100 games. Most of his playing experience comes from the lowest level of pro/semi-pro hockey. Djsasso 18:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep — Caknuck 20:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Player WP:HOCKEY notability requirements for hockey players. Has played less than one full season and only 51 games in a high level minor league. Most of his experience comes from extremely low minor/semi-pro hockey. His only real claim to notability is being the brother of Joe Sakic which is not good enough. Djsasso 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]