The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is for a compleatly none notable character, using a dubious name! Doktor Wilhelm 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
The result was the otters are not amused. that's not how you re-nominate something anyway, especially not when the page is a permanent red link. P.S. Happy April Fool's Day to you too. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rain, in plain, stays mainly near the Thames. --M@rēino 14:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline WP:Advert. Declined speedy to be safe, sending to AfD. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Non-admin closuer. MrPrada (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable historical person, no assertion or proof of existence or notability, OR NewAtThis (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable religion, very few google hits, article admits it has very few followers. Roleplayer (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete it. this is a legitamate wiki and sect and belief. the official website was created well before 4/1 so its not a april fools joke. i found out about this on facebook and its becoming popular at my school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.31.12 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — 24.99.31.12 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable because it just has relationship to article-less drummer. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 23:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Redirect. I'm going to be bold here and redirect the article since, as Canley points out, this is not an entirely improbable search term, and it appears the nominator is a fairly new user who may not have been aware to redirect rather than nominate for AfD outright. Will leave a note on their page. Non-admin close. Redfarmer (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already exists. I think. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete the disambiguation page, procedural keep on the redirects. Although I understand the thinking behind bundling these together, redirects are a different beast and need to be discussed at WP:RFD. As such, I only examined the consensus as it relates to the disambiguation page. --jonny-mt 14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DAB page for two WP:NN albums, neither of which are apparently worthy of their own pages. Both are redirects and included in this Afd. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are WP:NN and don't have their own articles, rather they redirect:[reply]
Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a disambig page, doesn't link to any articles, more like a dictionary definition. Has been transwikied to Wiktionary. Corvus cornixtalk 23:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly db-bio - no notability asserted. Person is "a part time multimedia entrepreneur and photographer currently attending American University".
There was a previous version of this article that seems to be a different person. That person also doesn't quite meet WP:BIO, or WP:PORNBIO. Adamdexter (talk · contribs) seems to have re-written the article to be about himself, deleting the previous person. Recommend the whole thing be deleted. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy kept, non-admin close. BJTalk 10:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gross lack of npov Woipwoipwoip (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merged to Felmersham. Black Kite 09:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The school is not notable and does not meet Wikipedias guidelines for entry Bleaney (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulted to keep. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 16:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Pac-Man bootleg with very few differences between it and the original game. Fails notability and lacks sources. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 22:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CAESAR
Killer List of Video Games
Video Game Museum[1]
Eric B (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC) article creator[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article lists a number of expensive things from a painting to coffee to certain precious metals. The word "things" in the title gives rise to questions about what should or should not be included. Also, the article is on a rather obscure subject. Finally, it may be difficult to tell if some of the listed things are indeed the most expensive things. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, removed by author. WP:HOAX. Fails WP:MOVIE. Cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected —BradV 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better article already exist List of tallest buildings in Pittsburgh Alaskan assassin (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete for no-content. - Philippe 03:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No content. Exists only to contain a single template. I considered A3 speedy, but will give it a chance here. It's just, to me, a "List" page without a list is not useful. TexasAndroid (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable football manager, does not appear to have managed and/or played at even close to a professional level. The team are (just) notable, individuals connected with them in either a playing or managerial capacity are not. fchd (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, for the lack of reliable sources beyond coverage of associated subjects, or other clear indications of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously deleted at AFD and was recreated today. I speedied it as a CSD:G4 as the article was more or less the same as the one that was AFDed. The author asked me to reconsider as he had added additional references, so I have restored it and am listing here. I don't think the references really change much as the original deletion was on notability grounds and there has been no content added to explain notability. Delete. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as non-notable. - Philippe 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once filter to the right Shenandoah, there's no evidence of significant RS coverage and ghits don't assert any notability. It's a local organization. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found less that 100 google hits for this orphan/stub article. Also, the article suggests the technology is still being worked out. It is non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps minor races in the Star Fleet Universe might be deleted occasionally. However, Klingons have achieved iconic status within the American culture as a whole, at least within pop culture, as well as within Star trek. therefore i consider this entry worthwhile. even though it is only about Klingons as depicted within the Star Fleet Battles game universe. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Klingons in Star Trek are iconic and notable. Klingons as they appear separately within a game universe? Not so notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Both sides raise good points below, but after reading through the arguments multiple times I found that the arguments for deletion all echoed the same point--specifically, a failure to demonstrate real-world notability--while the arguments for keeping the article ranged from its importance within the Star Trek universe to the sheer scope of the information involved to speculation that reliable sources should exist. However, as no sources have emerged addressing the issues of notability brought up by the deletion comments, I consider this more pressing issue to remain unsolved and thus consider the policy-based arguments for discussion as being sufficient to establish a consensus to delete.
As a disclaimer, I did not examine either the precedent cases nor the previous AfD arguments--this close is based on my interpretation of the arguments as presented below. Finally, I (or, I imagine, most of the admins who participated in the discussion) will be more than happy to provide a copy of the text to anyone who wants to userfy or transwiki the content. --jonny-mt 06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the difference between United Federation of Planets and United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe).
The result was keep. John254 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IINFO, WP is not a random list of information. If anything, this would be best served by a category but I'm not certain that Ryerson University is really that relevant to a discussion of a vast majority of these people. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Planned, future", therefore violates WP:Crystal ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge to be acted upon on the talkpage. Skomorokh 00:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable demo with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The band talked a little about the leak in an interview—trivial coverage. Most of the article appears to be original research. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable collectible card game. Sources go so far as to confirm that it exists, but very little more than that. Wikis and resale sites not reliable sources. Last AfD closed with no consensus, and virtually no participation. Relisting to get a greater sampling to build consensus. DarkAudit (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Also, Black Monday (2008) already redirects back to this article. GlassCobra 16:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article consists entirely of contemporary market commentary with little or no evidence of lasting economic significance. Fails per WP:RECENT. Ronnotel (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait and see. Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and should not pretend to. It is perfectly fine to write about ongoing events with an eye towards benefiting future readers, but without attempting to prejudge what will be regarded as historically important ten (or 100) years from now.
The result was Delete. GlassCobra 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is he a notable enough person for a Wikipedia article?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Black Kite 09:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable high school club, completely fails WP:V. While consensus broadly holds that high schools are notable, there is no such pass for high school clubs. There are only 25 Google hits for the organization, the lead hits being its own webpage, this Wikipedia article and various Wiki mirrors. There is not a single hit even for local newspaper calendar sections, which one might expect. Having performed in plays and musicals in high school myself, I'm sympathetic, but there's just no there there. RGTraynor 19:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE (professional league) standard, and more stringent WP:BASEBALL (minor league all-star) standard. Sourcing seems adequate and reliable. No other reasons for deletion given. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable baseball player. Fails notability requirements at WP:BASEBALL, in that he has not played a game in Major League Baseball, has not played a full season in the minors at the AAA level (he's just been promoted to AAA at this writing), hasn't won any big minor-league awards and hasn't been named to a noted minor league all-star team. He may be notable at the end of this season if he lasts the whole year at AAA, or sooner if he gets called up to the big leagues, but he isn't now. The guidelines are very specific, and Heether does not yet meet any of the applicable criteria. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. per WP:NEO, does not appear to be widely used. Black Kite 09:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. --Snigbrook (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your due diligence, but I did find more references to it online. Perhaps search under "noshore" and "no shore" as well. After all, every term, at some time, can be considered a neologism. Casper SSLLC (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (kept by default). A few merge suggestions, so I opened a merge discussion - Nabla (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe plot repetition of information in Ace Combat articles. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirected to Dog hybrid. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsoucred article about a dog cross-breed. There are dozens, hundreds? of dog breeds, making hundreds or thousands of cross-breeds possible, and when we consider the various admixtures that can be achieved, thousands or millions more. This one, as most, is not-notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. No reliable third-party sources to back up claims of notability. Black Kite 08:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO, fails WP:N, fails WP:V. There are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of this individual. The entire article is "sourced" by YouTube and his bio for a speaking engagement, which does not constitute reliability or independence. Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). No delete comments besides nominator. Skomorokh 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or other indication that this chicken is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Black Kite 08:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a school get together with Harry Potter fans. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having month by month articles for countries is a bad idea, this unsourced WP:CRYSTALBALLISM is likely what would result, let's nip this in the bud. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest that this unsourced given name article is noteworthy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per unanimous responses. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 01:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no assertion that complies with WP:BIO. αѕєηιηє t/c 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Whilst the merits of each version can be debated, there is no doubt that the sources are available to write an encyclopedic article on this subject. Black Kite 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC). See his rationale somewhat below. `'Míkka>t[reply]
Comment for late comers, amazed by the degree of militant ignorance expessed by several otherwise apparently smart people, I started a complete, total rewrite of the article, despite the fact that I am a far cry from being a trained politologist. Therefore the votes and opinions expressed below are related to this version. `'Míkka>t 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I searched on the wrong term--a somewhat narrower term, which does have a narrower focus, just as Rr says, and I demonstrate below. I repeated it on "communist propaganda" -- the exact phrase finds 797 books the subject heading "Propaganda, communist" has 3458 books. of these, 697 books have both subject headings assigned [24]. Rr is right, the subjects overlap only partially. And, again as Rr says, the phrase need not necessarily match the subject. The subject heading, though, is controlled vocabulary assigned by subject experts. Obviously the books under it will show various points of view, and the article needs to reflect it. Indeed the books on even the first screen of the subject search [25] reflect quite a range of political positions and approaches to the subject. I understand what Rr is saying, that the article may to some extent confuse the two subjects, but despite the apparent facility of dealing with POV problems by deletion, such is not the right approach. DGG (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for late comers, amazed by the degree of militant ignorance expessed by several otherwise apparently smart people, I started a complete, total rewrite of the article, despite the fact that I am a far cry from being a trained politologist. Therefore the votes and opinions expressed above are related to this version. `'Míkka>t 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Economic law proposed by one "Spencer R Lucas", which is likely an elaborate hoax. I can find no such economist mentioned elsewhere - <"Spencer Lucas" Cambridge> throws up only unrelated results [26]; and the entire article is thoroughly unreferenced. (The sole ref is to a pdf stashed in a university intranet which requires logging in.) Strong delete, unless references are found. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non encyclopedic unsourced oneliner about a neo- or protologism Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination. Consider the importance of making your point via consensus and debate, as opposed to impulsively nominating another article to assert it. WilliamH (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a user guide. This article looks like a user guide on how to make phone calls in Thailand. Caytruc (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable event, no reliable sources. ukexpat (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. (Non-admin closure) Stong argument made that subject satifies WP:N. Darkspots (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a vanity article, tagged for a long time and not fixed. Graevemoore (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep given a total lack of delete preferences. (non-admin closure) Skomorokh 01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself asserts non-notability. He never opened a school, and taught only one student who then taught many people. The majority of the article is different ways to transcribe his name. RogueNinjatalk 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%98%AE%E5%A5%87%E5%B1%B1
http://www.21wulin.com/wulin/chuantong/1397.html
It will provide more information on Yuan.
In general, if a person is notable, they should have their own page. This will advance our goal for Wikipedia - to ensure that quality information is available to those that are interested. --Ottawakungfu (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was It took him hours and hours to climb back to the top of the cliff, but from where he stood the view was remarkable Grutness...wha? 01:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a clear violation of policy and a perfect example of what Wikipedia is not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC) UsaSatsui (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:CRYSTAL of course ;) TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having removed the text that was taken up with slang terms, this article says very little that isn't covered in the Obesity article, to which I think it should be merged. The only references in the entire article were in the slang section; now that's gone there are none at all. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a user guide. This article looks like a user guide on how to make phone calls in Vietnam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdanh2002 (talk • contribs) 15:31, April 1, 2008
The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exceptionally low-quality page, no encyclopedic content, no independent sources, notability not asserted. Episode summaries are a violation of WP:NOT, filled with original research, and particularly poorly written. Rampant WP:MOS violations. Once all unencyclopedic content is removed, there's simply nothing left here to merge. Possibly these issues could be resolved with a ground-up rewrite but I seriously doubt it. Yamla (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Notability is indeed not inherited, hence the mass re-direction or deletion of dozens of unsourced stubs; but that doesn't mean that a sub-article is automatically non-notable. This is quite well sourced and as pointed out below, merging back into the main article would make that one unwieldy. Black Kite 09:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes a non-notable fictional company in a notable show. While the show is popular in the US, notability does not confer to the company--any references avialable are in-universe and fictional, and the company doesn't have influence on markets, advertising, technology, or trends in their industry.
Tagged for notability for a couple months without improvement. Marked as OR for six months without imrpovement. Listing for AfD after ((prod)) disputed. Mikeblas (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot properly discuss The Office and its characters without discussing Dunder Mifflin, the company for which pretty much all of them work. It is as important to understanding the show as understanding Springfield is to The Simpsons. It is the show's setting even more than Scranton. And you have to discuss it at more length than you could within an article, because like Springfield a wealth of detail has been adduced about it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is primarily from abstract principle and seems to be more an exercise in constructing an argument for deletion because no one else here is making one, than a viable argument for deletion. It could be summed up as "if information about some aspect of a fictional universe cannot be dealt with in the main article, than it shouldn't be dealt with at all." We would have to get rid of a lot of articles about characters then.
To address your one point that reflects the instant article rather than an abstract category: Do I think Scranton will have banners hanging (and, I should say from personal experience, the company's logo splattered all over the main elevator shaft at Steamtown Mall, plus on the pedestrian bridge out front)? Hell yeah, given the tourism boost the show's given the city. After all, the Bull & Finch Pub is still living off Cheers memorabilia over a decade after that show was cancelled. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, since the lack of in depth coverage by reliable sources has not been overcome. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost one year after the last AfD, there is still no independent source for the article, actually not even an assertion of notability. B. Wolterding (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge (yes, it can be done). I see a clear consensus to either merge or delete the page, but there is no clear consensus as to which of these two outcomes is more desirable. As such, I am defaulting to the option that preserves the most content. --jonny-mt 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research. There was never a "White Argentina policy", and the term has never been used in any notable academic circles or papers. The article should be deleted and merged with Racism in Argentina. Lobizón (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 07:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not apparent, no RS, puff piece. ukexpat (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to List of ZX Spectrum clones. PhilKnight (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable subject, a local Spectrum clone built 1988-1989 in small quantities. One www source available, no printed publications. Kubanczyk (talk) 12:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per lack of notability and reliable sources as indicated below. The flood of anonymous/SPA accounts should also be reminded that deletion discussions are not a vote but rather a way of measuring policy-based consensus amount editors. --jonny-mt 07:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Software that is not notable and has no reliable sources other then it’s home page, a rant page about someone who got fired from their job and another site that you need a password to get into. Pmedema (talk) 12:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say: just put the word Ulteo on google and you'll find over 250.000 pages of results! Only uncorrect people can say there are "No reliable, verifiable independent sources."
http://fosswire.com/2008/03/28/ulteo-application-system-beta-1-the-fosswire-review/ http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ulteo http://www.linux.com/feature/125891 http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/97110/index.html http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9832336-7.html http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071216-hands-on-with-the-new-online-version-of-openoffice-org.html http://lifehacker.com/software/online-documents/use-openoffice-online-with-ulteo-332841.php http://rangle.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/ulteo-will-it-change-the-way-we-all-use-computers/ http://wddc.blogspot.com/2007/12/would-ulteo-help-openoffice-to-beat-ms.html ... I think there's no need to go futher.
Before to say that "Is neither popular nor innovative" is better read about the Application System (http://www.ulteo.com/home/applicationsystem) or the Online Desktop (http://www.ulteo.com/home/onlinedesktop).
You want to know what to do with the Online Desktop? you may consider to read (http://blog.ulteo.com/)
One thing is right: the page is not well done and MUST be edited. But I'm not so sure it must be deleted... -- Panta 21:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.20.72 (talk • contribs) — 82.51.20.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DarkAudit (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Ealing Broadway station only because there might be some useful info to transfer (though I think most of it is already there). In this case, notability is clearly not inherited. The few Keep votes are mostly "it's notable", and another editor was under the impression it was a station in its own right. I have protected the redirect given some of the remarks made in this AfD. Black Kite 14:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "contested" (unexplained, waste of everyone's time) proposed deletion. My original reasoning: "Far too specific an article - a single unremarkable platform at a railway station?"; a further endorsment by Jfire: "Ealing Broadway station is reasonable; an article on a single platform there is taking it too far". Thanks/wangi (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete under WP:CSD#G7 per [39] Pedro : Chat 11:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod (unexplained). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league (the Tercera División is not fully pro) and claiming that he will play at a higher level is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The discussion below indicates that the subject does not pass the criteria of WP:BIO. --jonny-mt 14:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Basketball coach with no verification as to notability and relatively few google hits. Article is totally unreferenced. Sole creator and editor is Caseyowens (talk · contribs) suggesting violation of WP:COI. Roleplayer (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy keep. This article has been proposed for deletion several times in the past month; the new nomination appears to be trolling and in any event not a reasonable or good faith nomination. Wikidemo (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a verifiable but very WP:LOCAL article and is largely complete WP:BOLLOCKS with wide and far reaching libel issues, NPOV issues, original research. The subject is not notable. He is only mentioned in passing in most of the sources which are all free trash newspapers from the Bay Area. No mention in Los Angeles or New York trash newspapers, no mention in legitimate San Francisco Bay Area newspapers. Articles which are about him are trivial mentions such as concert and entertainment and arts sections that report on concerts. Also a non notable rap magazine. And apparently the artist's album notes too, album notes are not appropriate secondary sources, they are not available online either and are not verified. This article while well formatted does not meet our standards and should be deleted. NewAtThis (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete without prejudice to re-creation; currently fails WP:BAND Black Kite 09:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to fail WP:BAND for me, it has been created as both Charming Associates and The Charming Associates several times and always ended up speedy deleted. Let's have a proper AfD and settle the matter ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.capitalradio.co.uk/article.asp?id=386292 Are there any wiki moderaters from the UK that can get involved in this as they will have better knowledge of the UK media and awards in this country? Voncrass (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Disruptive AfD by a possible sock; subject clearly appears to be notable. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
possible hoax, original research, no reliable sources, no sources, not verified, etc etc NewAtThis (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. There are a number of good policy-based arguments on all sides, but despite thorough discussion I do not see a clear consensus to delete, redirect, or merge the article. --jonny-mt 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
per whoever nominated NewAtThis (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD post-deletion. Original PROD rationale was, "NN performer. 12 appearances on Letterman in five years isn't a lot, especially with very little else in the way of appearances. Most of the press coverage on her official site is trivial, and GHits are brief mentions only." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW, account under investigation for bad faith edits. Porterjoh (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable, no citations, no sources, no reliable sources, no secondary sources, no tertiary sources, only one link, largely promo ad, all original research, not verified. NewAtThis (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep: nomination withdrawn. —BradV 03:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable newspaper mini stub, no reliable sources, no in text sources, no secondary sources, likely a translation of a similarly non notable but slightly (slightly) longer stub in swedish. NewAtThis (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WITHDRAW NOMINATIONNewAtThis (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely short article about a politician (possibly Nigerian). No hits in Google for this name. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This martial art is not notable. The few sources that assert any kind of notability come directly from the style's own website. RogueNinjatalk 10:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above I have trained in the more known martial arts, such as Karate, kickboxing, Tae kwon do, Judo, Ju jit su, Mauy Thai, BBJ, Boxing, and Kung fu , I agree there are many types of these arts ie Kung fu, wing Chun, wing tzun, tai chi, Tai Chi does have lock out movements'puch hands', and boxing does not use biomechanics, as the arm loks out at speed in a punch and retracts the same way, this is not boimechanics, just simply pushing off the rear foot is not biomechanics, I am and agree with you experienced and am a ABA boxing coach, so I know what I am talking about, but lets have this debate out side the afd please.--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Unanimity that the page should be deleted. In addition, I find the nominator's arguments to be particularly persuasive and the secondary sources in the article are weak. TerriersFan (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded the article and just noticed that it had under gone AfD before, so I'm bringing it back. The article fails WP:N, the group is not notable. They have never been covered by a non-amateur radio publication and have never recognized for their services by any source outside the amateur radio community. Having big radios isn't notable, providing a service to the community during a disaster and being covered in the news for it is. The article fails WP:V and WP:OR as it doesn't cite a single secondary source, being based only on first-party sources and/or first-hand accounts. As for the arguments of the last AfD. It should not be redirected to ARES, no other articles link to the article and redirecting a local chapter to the national organization serves no purpose. It should also not be merged, the article has no information that would be useful to the Amateur Radio Emergency Service article. BJTalk 10:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, fails WP:BAND. Black Kite 09:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I recall, Wikipedia was not a repository for resumés. Yet that's exactly what this looks like. Not up to WP notability standards, either. Grutness...wha? 10:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources or other clear indication of notability. Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author with one self-published book based on own thesis. Likely autobio. Speedy declined. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 13:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable company. Article is pure marketing. Incorrect translation of Latin. Probable WP:COI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:V. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PROD removed by author without comment. This is an unsourced neologism and Wikipedia is not for first publication of something made up one day, even if the day is April 1st. JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete or maybe rewrite/redirect As it stands its mostly speculation about a possible future use for the term. Surely this violates WP:CRYSTAL. Keep if its usage as a term for the stupidity of AI systems can be expanded sufficiently, if there is insufficient to say then merge into AI article and redirect to appropriate section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 23:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The result was keep. There was a clear consensus that the page should be kept. The overall view was that the real-world context was sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains in-universe information about a fictional concept. Since the first AfD, no convincing secondary sources have been added to the article, nor is there any clear real-world context. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI bot identified this as possibly written by the subject herself. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and most probably WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, fails to meet WP:BIO Dreadstar † 04:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was created by user Reinoza, this article drew the suspicions of our WP:COI bot. Extremely minor, non-notable artist. No third-party WP:RS. Claims to have achieved notability through a "spiritual experience." You'll have to read this one to believe anybody would actually post such a thing, complete with copies of the non-notable paintings. Qworty (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. No, not without substantial manipulation of the word "peers"
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No. "People have souls and it is that which I wish to paint" is hardly groundbreaking.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No book, no film, and absolutely zilch on Google Books, Scholar, or Web - not the ultimate test, but very telling, especially for an artist whose artwork was entirely created in the 21st century.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or significant libraries. The most significant monument seems to be this article. The most significant exhibition is the Galeria Claudia, which from what I can gather on Google seems to be a local "hole in the wall", a step down from a local suburban civic center. No significant critical attention (see previous paragraph). No permanant display beyond "CSIM-303 A Street", which doesn't seem to be mentioned as such anywhere outside this article.
ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)
Artist
noun a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
This is a definition of Art from Britannica: ART lacks a satisfactory definition. It is easier to describe it as the way something is done -- "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others" (Britannica Online)
A definition of Artist from Princenton.edu: artist, creative person (a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination) People does not need to be famous to be consider an artist. Remember: << 1 Corinthians 3:13 >> New American Standard Bible (©1995) each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. King James Bible Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
Thank you (The Dreamer Team) thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 07:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikepedia is trying to push itself as a public dictionary with an amazing marketing strategy. It is normal for any student that works in the XXI century to believe that it is public, like all the comments against wonderful museums and exhibitions that the users have no idea about. For our system education (In Europe in general) ethnocentrism and stereotypes are not valid: Ethnocentrim is Viewing other peoples and cultures from the standard of one's own cultural assumptions, customs, and values. You assume that American culture and American companies are the guideline of International standards. We have a big fight with Microsoft in Europe because the same problems. We really are happy because we are learning. We do not want to hurt our professor and his reputation. The idea of Wikepedia was ours We apologize again because we are learning. We are students. When we wrote "to promote new Latin American artist in Europe", we mean, to let Europe to know the existance of new wonderful artist from this side of the world. WE are from Paris, the most important artistic city in all the world, and you cannnot deny that. We learn from our classes that everything in America is politically correct, and people has to live with misunderstandings or misinterpretations. WE had in our plans to promote 10 New American Artist. The dreamer project is a big project. After this experience, we decided to write to the media in France to let then know the way that wikepedia works and the opinion of the experts in Art from wikepedia and America. Thank you! thedreamerteam@gmail.com(User talk:Reinoza) 01:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, which defaults to keep. However, there is some confusion here. This isn't an article about a nightclub. It is an article about one particular evening's festivies that happen to happen at a club. A club Night. The Club itself, as pointed out below, doesn't have an article. Without references and other improvements, and with more clarity, I would support a renomination in 4-6 weeks. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see how in the world this is notable. No notability asserted. No WP:RS presented. And what's with that photo? This should have been deleted long ago. Qworty (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what criteria this would fit, but it just feels so wrong. It's not patent nonsense, but it's close. Withdrawn due to significant improvement.Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge left to article editors to act upon. Sole delete preference was from indef blocked sock. Skomorokh 01:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references for notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable schoolNewAtThis (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Calgary#Education. --jonny-mt 13:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references of notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as copyvio from [63] Pegasus «C¦T» 11:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like sports commentary from a school newspaper rather than an encyclopedia article. Opinion piece, no notability established, no sources. Deprodded. Weregerbil (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure) given lack of delete preferences apart from the nominator. Skomorokh 01:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, briefly produced fetish item without any verifiable reliable sources. Neitherday (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non encyclopedic content. Ctempleton3 (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BIO as no secondary references to importance given. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure) given lack of delete preferences. Skomorokh 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unimportant conferance less than 150 people attended. It appears to have no encyclopedic importance. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 2B1 conference was a significant milestone in the development of the OLPC project, which is of considerable encyclopedic value. --Iwoj (talk) 06:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and redirect to the proper page on the OLPC project. In and of itself, the conference doesn't seem notable, although it is certainly notable in regards to it's guiding said project. That is where this information belongs. Celarnor Talk to me 06:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conference occurred in 1997 and the OLPC project did not begin to appear publicly until around 2005. From how [this article] recites a tongue-in-cheek history of 2B1 in relation to the OLPC project, I would suggest that the 2B1 article be allowed to live on and evolve its own body of text before being merged. It may hold some useful corollary content to not only the OLPC project, but other projects relating to education, technology and development. Give us a week to flesh out the article. --Iwoj (talk) 07:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be inaccurate to consider the 2B1 conference a predecessor to the OLPC project. The 2B1 conference informed the OLPC, but it was by no means the sole contributor to the OLPC concept, nor was the OLPC project the only notable outcome of the conference. --Iwoj (talk) 05:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I stand corrected. I couldn't find any other outcomes besides Nation1 and OLPC, despite the many fascinating people who were there. I've merged the text. How do with delete and redirect this page? --Iwoj (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non notable, poorly sources, doesn't meet wp BIO NewAtThis (talk) 05:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
The result was keep. John254 22:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO criteria not met. WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." Note Number 3 is critical in WP:BIO "Sources that are pure derivatives of an original source can be used as references..." this means no matter how many reproduction of original artwork that is put in books does not count toward significance. Unless author can provide sources to the significance of this person (other than reproduction of original artwork.) I move to delete this article. Ctempleton3 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That page already exists at Robert ebendorf, move Robert ebendorf to Robert Ebendorf. – i123Pie biocontribs 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), per WP:SNOW. Nom requires advice on AFD nomination and procedure as this is clearly a bad nom. Porterjoh (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy seems not to be a famous homerun homer, article is patent original research, no reliable sources, no sources, no links, no internal links, not verified NewAtThis (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep First ghit verifies that he played in the major leagues *and* there's actually RS coverage minus the one military records link, they're all him. Newatthis' Drive by AFds are getting old. I think s/he may benefit from a mentor. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 14:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was the future of this essay is now. Honestly I have never seen a conglomeration of words that look so meaningful and yet so devoid of real meaning, either on-wiki or off-wiki. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, removed by author. Article is a pure essay. Cites no sources in any usable way. Fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non admin close). Dustitalk to me 19:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources retaining to her notability, even if she is a voice actress. The article fails to address her Notability. In my opinion, the page is considered vanity. If you have any questions about this proposal, please let me know on my talk page. Harold26 (c) 05:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:RS provided to establish notability. Only sources given are websites run by the parent company. Google search also fails to provide reliable third-party sources, just a lot of self-generated pages. Article has been edited by a user named Popstarz, who was identified as a problematic user by our WP:COI bot. This user created Tommy Moss, Trash palace, and The ghetto (club), which are all spam relating to the Popstarz company, and which are all up for AfD. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is brought to us by the same self-promotional account that gave us the related Tommy Moss and Trash palace articles, which are also up for AfD. No WP:N asserted and no WP:RS provided. It's all spam, all the time, through and through. Qworty (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just another bar--notability has not been established or even particularly asserted. No WP:RS. Author of the article also posted Tommy Moss, who works for the same company, Popstarz, that owns the bar. Author has the same name as the company, which made our WP:COI bot suspicious. Apparently this is one of a series of self-promotional business articles that were added on the same day [80]. Probably all of them should go. Qworty (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable padded resume, identified by our COI bot as a possible violation of WP:COI, due to the fact that the article's author bears the same name as the company Tommy Moss works for. There are many people named Tommy Moss who show up on Google, but none of them appears to be this one. Notability has not been established, and no WP:RS have been offered. The only references are links to websites run by the company Moss works for. Qworty (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete both per lack of reliable sources or other indication of notability noting, however, that Janmedia hasn't been tagged in connection with this AfD but for its own. Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A newly released and not yet notable software product. Wikipedia does not allow this sort of advertising, we are not a database of companies either. In this consideration I'd also like to include the parent article Janmedia for deletion, as there is not verification by reliable sources of notability. Keegantalk 03:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --jonny-mt 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person and personal essay possibly written by the person itself. BoL (Talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Although a number of comments support merging the article, they all come with some serious caveats that do not appear to have been overcome. --jonny-mt 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism. Google hits were all related to this article. Prod removed without explanation. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article created by a very new editor. Please be patient. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unreferenced and unencyclopedic article on a non-notable local disco at a rugby club, not even worth merging to the article on Suttonians RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Notwithstanding that I have !voted in this discussion myself, I feel that this should be closed, as it is one of very many bad faith AfDs created by this user, who is a possible sock (see here). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable topic, no reliable sources, only one link, not the subject of non trivial published secondary sources. Not verified. Does not assert notability. NewAtThis (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected by myself to L3 (CERN). The page's content was exactly the same as L3 (CERN), so I feel that this is a non-controversial redirect and probably didn't warrant discussion in the first place. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is a nearly exact copy of L3 (CERN) Mjamja (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. I'll go ahead and create a redirect to The Vines for convenience's sake, but as I don't consider this part of the consensus feel free to change the redirect target in the future. --jonny-mt 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, there needs to be significant coverage for albums and songs to warrant their own single in reliable independent sources. The article itself mentions that the single was strictly limited in number of copies. Also, searching doesn't reveal much coverage beyond lyrics and download sites and unofficial reviews etc.. [87] Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced future album. Sceptre (talk) 02:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn, sole remaining delete preference rendered obsolete in light of The Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was already speedied as a copyvio, that's no longer the case. Unfortunately it does not pass WP:BAND. While RS coverage is hard due to a) band's age (although they're active now and should have coverage) and b) the name, there is no evidence of it and the label doesn't appear to be major, note it's not Old Homestead but rather Homestead. Also not encyclopedic and promotional, but that could be fixed if they were notable. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn thanks to Edgarde;s work, see note below[reply]
Withdrawn, thanks to Edgarde's work below. I still think we need a DAB page, which I'm about to create. This will stay here because I think people searching for the working class are unlikely to use 'the' and if they do, the link atop the article will point them home. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article had an expired prod on it, with the reason: "Almost an A7 - promotional bio." Maybe it's on the adverty side but I'm not sure it should be deleted, since she is a notable personality, so I'm bringing it here for further opinions. ... discospinster talk 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page was made again on here, but used as a different thing. This song was never a single. It is a song that was released, but it hasn't been on an album or isn't a single. Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Nominator and all other delete voters changed or withdrew their opinions after the article was improved. (non-admin closure) --erachima formerly tjstrf 13:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seems made up and yahoo search doesn't get anything at all. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Really, really weak delete. Withdrawing Vote. Seems like the sources are reliable but still, it still sound hoaxy. I mean - all the names of the albums are all the same except for a number added on the end. It just passes WP:RS but it hasnt been even released yet, how do we know if it is going to be. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated formerly deleted article (which was never tagged as such, but has perhaps been sufficiently rewritten to not qualify as CSD). Contested prod, but still NN. The content of the article and the type of detail before I cleaned it up points to COI by either Faulks or someone he knows (there are quite a few redlink contributors involved in this article, and things that no one person would know unless they were involved directly in all those events). There are no independent sources supporting his notability. Top hits: his Myspace, this article, a forum, a blog, and LinkedIn. That spread is not what I would expect of a sufficiently notable individual. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musician biography that does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), has no reliable sources, and is not written from a NPOV Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no references to prove vague assertion of notability cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Singularity 06:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a replication of several list that already exist.Aiden Fisher (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but a image gallery of various skylines, and only has a paragraph on skylines. There isn't enough here to warrant it's own article. Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, Original research and commentary. The current text sounds entirely like a blog/op-ed piece. The author/creator of the page removed my prod notice, so I'm putting it up for AFD here. --Ragib (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Ragib (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect three, merge one. There is enough support for merger here (which is a form of keep) to make deletion inappropriate, but strong consensus that these albums do not demonstrate notability sufficient to merit stand-alone status. The albums are all already mentioned at Vitamin Records (with which String Quartet Tribute has recently been merged). The track listings at The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Hypnotize and The String Quartet Tribute to System of a Down's Mezmerize are redundant to the albums being tributed, and without compelling reason this information should not be merged to the parent article as it currently exists for space concerns. (See WP:MUSIC); these articles are accordingly being redirected. The body of The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater includes additional information which can be incorporated into the parent article and has been merged as a footnote. The track listings at Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights and The String Quartet Tribute to Dream Theater are unique arrangements and may be appropriate for inclusion in some form or the other in the parent article; because of space concerns and precedent within the article, they have not been. The article Arteries Untold: The String Quartet Tribute to Hawthorne Heights has simply been redirected. This is easily remedied by referring to the history of the redirected articles if the contributors at Vitamin Records deem the inclusion of track lists appropriate. If unfamiliar with merging, please refer to Help:Merge for proper procedure to follow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-notable album by a tribune band. The only thing they mention are redlinked names of who created the album and the track listing. The track listing is pointless because you can find that at the Mezmerize article. I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:
The result was Delete --JForget 23:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A overly promotional article about a non-notable author that lacks reliable sources to back up some unlikely claims to notability. (For example, it's claimed that "Women vs. Ice cream" was nominated for an "Outstanding Achievement in Poetry" by the National Library of Poetry, yet there are only 4 ghits for the title, none of which come close to being reliable). Bfigura (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Singularity 06:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced article about a nn trade school. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was srsly keptz. Send your rickrolls this way, I'm going non-admin on this one. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Srsly guyz. Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]