The result was No consensus — Tivedshambo (t/c) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unconfirmed and unsourced article for the new AC/DC album. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to List of Baldur's Gate characters. Sandstein (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aricle about a fictional character from the Forgotten Realms campaign setting, which is which part of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise promoted by TSR, Inc. The article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and has no reliable source to demonstrate the notability of the fictional characters outside the D&D franchise from which it is derieved. The article's content is a synthesis of primary source material, written from an in universe perspective. Gavin Collins (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable musician, despite having backed dozens of notable musicians – there are no evident sources pertaining to his individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable holiday, invented by one kid. Has a couple of local news sources, so not speediable, but no indication of notability otherwise. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Elaine Caruana was created after the death, in a car accident, of the person in question. It was only created as Elaine Caruana made the news, for the sole reason that she died in a traffic accident. Every traffic accident death makes the news in Malta. Previous to her death, she was not a well known personality in Malta, and, to this day, a Google search on her name results only in webpages which are related to her death in the accident - such as a memorial page, and the web archives of local newspapers. Just because she was a model, and possibly well known amongst her colleagues, doesn't mean she was notable. Moreover, just because she appeared on a (relatively unpopular) television program, as a model for clothes presented on the program, doesn't mean she was notable. With all due respect to the deceased woman, I do not think that a Wikipedia article about her is appropriate. The content of the article, which lists absolutely no particularly notable achievements, and demonstrates, as the only evidence of her "fame", the mere fact that she appeared as a clothes model on a television show, should be seen as further evidence for deletion. Yes, she was well known amongst her friends as being a friendly and nice person - however I'm sure almost all of us have known nice people who died, but we cannot validly create a Wikipedia article for each one of them. MaxCosta (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirected to List of Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign endorsements as an ((R from other capitalisation)), an article that was created and split off from Hillary Clinton in February 2008. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing more than a list (which only contains one thing anyway), which should be merged into Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 if it is considered appropriate, but I have an inkling it may not be as it seems to be somewhat lacking in material that would improve the article. asenine t/c 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a high school girl who won a science competition for a "[not] shocking"[1] discovery relating to tuberculosis. The only coverage cited is a The New York Times article summarizing the competition and the press release from Siemens, who put on the competition. There's a lot of POV and OR in the article, and the information there not included in the only cited source makes me think that the author of the article personally knows the subject, raising conflict of interest and autobiography concerns. Her Google hits indicate that she is notable only for this one event. Ultimately, she won a contest with some unusually sophisticated results, but she isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. Dylan (talk) 22:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus was reached in December 2007 - January 2008 on the SingStar talk page that individual articles on each PS2 SingStar game should be replaced by a single List of SingStar titles article. The games -- while notable as a whole -- do not justify over 20 articles detailing the track list in every country. Specific Wikipedia policies that these articles fail include: WP:NOTABILITY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE
This AFD nomination includes the following articles (every PS2 game):
Tntnnbltn (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this software developer meets the criteria of WP:BIO. Though the article is referenced, few if any of the references actually demonstrate the notability of the individual, and the most important claims of notability (comprehensiveness and recognition of his website, and the conference presentation) are unreferenced or not supported by the references. And even if they were, they do not, in my opinion, constitute a body of work in the field sufficient for WP:BIO, nor does the individual seem to have been the subject of any significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. non admin, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested redirect. Article argues against its own notability "the song didn't impacted the charts and a commercial release was not launched." No reliable sources cited either. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. There is consensus that retaining the information now in the article is considered worthwhile, when you combine the Merge and the Keep votes. The only merge targets actually suggested were Wikipedia and List of Wikipedias. There is hardly any place to put the merged information in List of Wikipedias. Even the fact that Mindong is written using the Foochow Romanized writing system won't fit there since there's only a one-line table entry for each Wikipedia. The option of merging is still available via the consensus of editors and requires no admin action if that's what you guys want to do. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Wikipedia edition with only 180 articles. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to the album. EdJohnston (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album track; fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to the album.
Non-notable album track, fails WP:MUSIC. Looks like someone has created a page for basically every track on the album. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a neologism and basically a copy of an article on another subject, complete with misleading pseudo-references, now deleted. Merenta (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kst447 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Dhartung | Talk 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--69.3.233.44 (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect. Done. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album song, never released as a single. Closest claim to fulfilling WP:MUSIC would be a solitary cover on a White Zombie tribute album by a non-notable band... thus fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article on a prominent but apparently non-notable studio drummer. Even if he does have his own model of snare drums, and even if he does have a rather impressive résumé, he doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable third party sources, which would mean that he seems to fail WP:MUSIC. On top of that, the article reads almost like a copyvio or promotion piece. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. - Philippe 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google finds 44 unique hits for "Original Vindicators" and the only source is the originator's website (which, incidentally, does not work for me either in Firefox or in IE). The originator is called "Rodcom". The author if this article is User:RODCOM. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldnt be deleted - I don't see the difference between this entry and the Avengers or the X-men entries. What makes this advertising and those entries not. And there are third party sources at The Museum of Black Superheroes.RODCOM (talk) 03:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you spent this much effort creating instead of hating you wouldn't have time for this. Again I said "unduly bias", and you just proved my point.
The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Helicon Systems does not appear notable, article has been around since 2003 and has no references. It is me i think (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that the article is notable but suggest that unless reliable secondary sources are added to the article it will get nominated for deletion again in the future. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sports grouping is not a team, as near as I can make out. It has only 21 Google hits, so I am pretty confident that it is non-notable. Creater of page removes speedy tags without comment, so it would be better to explore this issue at AfD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I says keep this page. That way more information about this AAA group could be known. talk) 17:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone actually followed AAA you would know who these people are. The leader of the gro Mesias has not only been in the headlining feud for the title but with one of the top face for the company. Also Mesias is Judas Mesias on TNA wrestling. if you do a search on YouTube or any mexican wrestling site you will see that this group has grown in popularity. I did correct one error that I had with the Spelling of the name but other that that I have the information just shy of one major event in the storyline. All members now have their own bios up also.Ldeffinbaugh (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2060s. Sandstein (talk) 06:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This year is too far in the future to have an article on Wikipedia. Note that we don't have articles for the other years in the 2060s decade, e.g. 2061, 2062, 2065, 2069. RightGot (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This professor does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF. I can find only one review of his book, a 117 word capsule review in Reference & Research Book News. His faculty bio isn't any help in establishing notability, and I can't find much on Google except his blog -- the domain name of which suggests that the article is an autobiography by Kilayeomi (talk · contribs). Jfire (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Breaching normal standards of wiki-manners by nominating this for deletion while it's still under construction, but this is clearly never going to be appropriate content. A totally unreferenced piece of original research and to make it valid would involve wiping it completely and starting again. — iridescent 19:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok guys, don't worry; please delete my contribution on the subject if you wish. I just wanted to make a sincere contribution on the subject, while there is lots of confusion out-there, see also the discussion about the article on post-postmodernism. You are right, a blg is a better forum for this! Thankx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erasmus2000 (talk • contribs) 20:56, April 20, 2008
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This developer conference contest does not seem to rise to an encyclopedic level of notability. I can't find any significant independent coverage -- only coverage in press releases by conference sponsors or other affiliated organizations. Jfire (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Editors may trim-out promotional spam as they see fit. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This company seems to fail WP:CORP. No evidence of notability is given, no sources have been added in over 2 years, the text seems promotional. CSD in 2005 and PROD in 2008 were contested however. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Although the results are mixed here, the delete opinions carry stronger policy based rationales. Non notable fictional character, unreferenced article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional character. Was previously prodded and deleted, but recreated. Stifle (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Although a merge might be appropriate, there is no consensus as to where a merge should happen (Mazda#Marketing v. Only the Strong). Should be discussed. Also, the article should be renamed per Dhartung to the proper title of the song, as originally recorded, with "Zum zum zum" being a redirect to that, per MOS. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable song. Visor (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bootleg release with no independent notability. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V and WP:N Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it currently stands, this article is an advert (probably an autobiographical one, created by an SPA). The artist claims two albums, but at least one of them is self-released [13]. I'm sending it here to see whether someone finds is salvageable, otherwise I suggest deletion. Tagged with ((notability)) since last June. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy under G3 as a blatant hoax. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. No sources. Not a single Google hit outside of wikipedia, not listed on the site of the label that is supposed to represent them. Not found in searches of the People or Blender magazine sites, or the Today show site, in spite of claims of having appeared in all three. (I suspect that some of these claims are false) Dawn Bard (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page because if they aren't notable, neither is there forthcoming album:
Dawn Bard (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and redirect to 2004 United States election voting controversies would appear to best satisfy (or least dissatisfy) concerns raised in this discussion. I've redirected the articles, and suggest interested editors recover whatever content is recoverable therefrom - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles nominated:
I am nominating this and a collection of sub-articles listed above. These articles have been longtime problems, violating the spirit of NOR by stitching together isolated news stories to, by implication, paint a picture of a large swath of problems with the 2004 US Presidential election. The problem is that the view that there was significant controversy is a fantastically fringe view, and that only a handful of the individual events mentioned in any of these articles are remotely encyclopedic. Stitching them together into a monstrously long sequence of articles does not fix the problem. There may be an article to be written on the conspiracy theories surrounding this election, but none of the articles here are appropriate as starting points for the article, and they should be cleared out. An appropriate article would note that the view that there were serious issues with the vote is a fringe view, supported in X ways, and criticized by Y for Z. It would not be a scattered collection of news stories covering minor and insignificant ephemera that is stitched together to give the misleading impression that there is a larger topic. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Issues of cleanup, sourcing and merging are better suited to talkpage discussion. Skomorokh 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems non-notable and borderline spam. I have removed some spam links to this company added by the user. BananaFiend (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. No tours, no notable label, and only one full length release. Look at the sources given too, only a home page and the metal archives. Delete Undeath (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A fictional country that is a contested PROD. A grand total of four Google hits are found, meaning no coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. ~ Eóin (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, no evidence (in reliable, third party sources) of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable producer. Has worked with a couple of notable artists (claimed—nothing from a reliable source) but no hit tracks/albums, etc. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Barely notable (if that). So Prepple Houmb played bass in 1987 in a pre-cursor to Betty Big Boom Band, and left before it became Betty Big Boom Band. None of the extensive list of members of Betty Big Boom Band have articles. Google only finds self-promotion URLs. Delete - or maybe redirect to Prepple Houmb. Kingturtle (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Consensus is small here, but combined with the other spammy deletes from this same vein, both deleted, the consensus is that there is nothing notable here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of a string of recently-created non-notable articles involving Dwight Tom and his enterprises. References 2-3 are first-party, whereas references 4-6 are forum posts. Finally, Reference one states that this product hasn't even been released yet: "Consumer models to arrive in Spring 2009." So Awesome (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to NCR Corporation. Dreadstar † 17:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the product series described here seems non-notable; the article is entirely unsourced. PROD was contested with comment: "seems notability, there are almost certainly references". I'm not so optimistic in that respect. Automated teller machines are not really consumer hardware, they're not typically subject in the main stream media, and substantial coverage about the series or individual models seems unlikely to me. Using Google, I found a number of vendors' sites, but these do not confer notability. B. Wolterding (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable record label launched last month, none of its current artists have articles on Wikipedia, no sources in article to illustrate its notability. Google search for "Shooting Elvis" with record label gets 93 unique hits. Roleplayer (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this label is pretty cool, got the first release - i agree about the steve bug point. there definatly needs to be more articles on techno —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.68.169 (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable local student government association. No real reliable sources (just links to alumni pages and school site.) Makes no assertion of notability. Original research. SevernSevern (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by me. J Milburn (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who was eliminated from American Idol and has since set up a myspace profile. Totally unreferenced, the claim that he is rumoured to have a record deal with Warner Brothers in unsubstantiated. Roleplayer (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Once more information is released as it goes into production then it can be recreated. It doesn't meet our standards right now though. Wizardman 17:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future film that is in the real early stages. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:NFF. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect is the most policy based option here. Nothing really to merge. However, the page histories of all three articles of the singles (all of which I'm redirecting in a minute here), will be intact per GFDL and if anyone wants to mine the contents to expand the album article. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable single, fails WP:MUSIC ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned about the notability of this game. It is dojin soft and only gets about 1100 google hits. Google hits aren't everything, (which was the reason why the proposed deletion was removed) but I believe they indicate that few further reliable sources could be found for the game's development and reception, for example. I believe the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games), provides some food for thought on this issue. Malkinann (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-promotional article lacking any third-party sources. Users involved in creating this article have also created spammy articles such as Ciiv and CLUXc. So Awesome (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICTIONARY and it is a very non notable term Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 16:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Consensus by editors who do not have a conflict of interest about the subject is that this is not a notable publication. Sandstein (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article written like a puff piece; most of the sources are either just text from the report (not information about the report itself) or interviews with the founder. None of them are sufficient to establish notability. Veinor (talk to me) 16:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of this page I do take offense to the claim of it being a 'puff piece'. I have taken information from our own sources - but also from trade websites (1up, SPONG, Insidecoinop, etc) that use the report so giving information of the work - making it available to others. I included the interview with the founder as it describes the market and the formation of the Stinger - if this is felt to be puff then it will be removed. What should be kept in the piece to full fill the Wiki requirements? Stingerreport (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been gone over again looking for any claims and repetition and edited. I need to know what more can be done as I seem to find that this page is like others and not unusual? Stingerreport (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Veinor for your information and observation. If I read this correctly you would need the description changed, and links found that are not written by Stinger, but are about Stinger for the reference. I propose to undertake this now and when completed need to know if this is in a direction that Wiki can support Stingerreport (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Page has been paired down of reference about the founder, the interviews, and uses references only talking about the Stinger Report and not written by the Stinger. Also details on the service operation and areas of coverage have been extended - with a re-write of the start and description as suggest. Please can you confirm this is more in keeping with Wiki requirements? Stingerreport (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Veinor for your support in helping us understand the requirements of what is quite a different process than we are use to. I would however request Sting that he dose not allude to The Stinger Report as "amounts to email spam", not matter meant as a question this can be taken the wrong way. In answer to your last points:
You have to understand that we created this page as a number of Wiki pages / categories (Exergaming, Simulator Rides, Video Arcades etc.,) are using quotes, links or direct cuts from the Stinger Report and we felt a pages was needed - it would seem weird that they can use our material but we are unable to have a page.
Finally I am concerned that because of the size of the amusement media scene we are used widely by the trade and have a established track record, but are limited to references other than our work being used by everyone. I notice our industries largest trade journal (RePlay) has not been given a Wiki entry because it only has its reference. Is this the case for Wiki entry, as I feel uncomfortable to a possible exclusion of amusement trade? Stingerreport (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Stinger Report is circulated to over 10,000 subscribed and verified email addresses over six times a month. Subscribers can sign up at the web site or approach the Stinger directly. This is stated in the Page, though the circulation number is not as it was claimed that this would be 'puffing' us up if we reported our numbers?? Dose this address your question? 84.9.85.219 (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time that some one has just turned up made a sweeping statement, then asked for Deletion. We entered this Page after a number of Wiki sites used information or sources from The Stinger Report - I can not see how creating an entry is not going to promote ANY service or business. Though I do not see a order for deletion from the Computer Games magazine entries or the other Newsletters? Is there a specific area of this page that could be changed that would not be seen as claimed promotion - or was this comment just made as a simple sweeping statement rather than a way to be constructive. We have done EVERYTHING asked to change alter or add to made this site suitable! Stingerreport (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again much appreciation in taking the time to supply us pointers in the coverage of the page in question; I have read the sources you pointed me towards and have this issues:
I notice that some of the criticisms of the Stinger page have swapped, as if some who originally claimed that it was ‘puffing’ now say it is not informative. It also has been edited to address the requests, and I have even supplied subscription information to address a unfounded claim of being internet spam! I would be interested in what else I am going to have to supply – especially as I notice that equivalent pages of similar services (xx) seem to have gone unquestioned into the site? Stingerreport (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have taken them on board and propose to look at the situation with a final re-write. I am concerned that first I was asked to add references that we worked in the sector, then about the Stinger, now in great detail about the service (which seems to go back to the Puff allegations at the beginning). As time is limited I have undertaken the following:
Finally, I have to take umbrage with your comment about ignoring other sites treatment – I am not asking for special privileges, just a level playing field. I have actually undertaken this re-write emulating Evil Avatar, which seemed to offer a good comparison to what TSR is. I notice their lack of a need for reference to survive and so have used the same approach. I look forward to the reaction! Stingerreport (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is becoming near impossible to understand the official statements for the spurious individuals who appear, make a statement and then vanish without want to discuss the situation. The Stinger Report page originally was entered with NO names. We then had complaint that we should attribute its coverage. Now we have done EVERYTHING to ensure that it meets requirements the goal post has been moved. You will see that we have removed the creators name - but will not remove the interview as it is valid (unless the Wiki team feel that it has to go - not just by anonymous comments). Stingerreport (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am GREATLY concerned by the method of moderating a page, we have done everything asked, and worked with those that requested change. But after doing more than asked we then suddenly find our account closed as if to try and stop us questioning some statements. This seemed to come after we proved that one complaint was incorrect about the page created. Is this Wiki's policy to smother questioning? Or is this a miss use of power? Kwp729 (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Veinor, it is this 'overzealous' behavior that I was concerned by - rather than a 'conspiracy'. It seems with the whole process of creating this page I have met 'overzealous' attitude. Be it the complaints of Puff, that then suddenly changed to complaints of lies, then when it was found that the pages info was based on fact, I managed to strike up a understanding (thanks in part to your appreciated information), then a sudden attack for deletion with no reason, and finally after doing EVERYTHING asked I am instantly blocked - now only to find out that this is not how it should happen. You must see from my point of view that there is a lot broken with the way information is added to the Wiki. I need to know:
and what can be done to address any outstanding issues. Again I thank you for your help on this. I am just unhappy that 'overzealous' individuals have such power (now I have said this will this latest account be blocked??) Kwp729 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Veinor - without your information this process would have been a dud. Regarding the accusations, you were not one of the individuals - I had to go to the 'talk' of one of the critics of the page to be told the reason for their claim for instant deletion only for that comment to be removed from their page (assumed they checked the facts and saw they had made a fool of them selves). I await the next stage in this process. Kwp729 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many "viewable with any browser" campaigns. This one is hardly notable. Plrk (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Directorate of Military Intelligence; I see nothing to merge. Sandstein (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MI13 entirely hypothetical, no evidence for existence Bazonka (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally nominated for A7, but I was on the fence about deleting under A7. Possibly still ripe for deletion as a non-notable biography, but I want to make sure I'm not off my rocker here... SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted, WP:SNOW Nakon 20:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable protoglism/neoglism. Was incorrectly tagged for speedy, so I bring it here instead. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to prenatal development. Sandstein (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only a definition, and duplicates content of similar aerticles like Embryo. The page should be transwikied to Wiktionary. EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Prenate" is an interesting word that I hadn't heard before. It seems to be synonymous with the more common term "unborn" which doesn't have an article either. So, delete or transwiki.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to the lack of reliable sources which would show it meets any of the criteria of the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. No reviews cited. The only reference used for the article is a college catalogue. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article is an essay and original research. Davewild (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay, neologism, no peer-reviewed sources. Tons of blog hits on Google, but obviously those are of no use. --- RockMFR 14:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per G4.
Apparently, so little is known about this album that it has no title, no definitive release date, and a single confirmed song. It's fine if this article exists once more is confirmed, but an article named "Tisdale's Second Studio Album" can't be expanded much more unless we start crystal-balling. So Awesome (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is un-notable and has no secondary sources. LizzieHarrison 13:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is un-notable and has no secondary sources. LizzieHarrison 13:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete by me. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability... I don't think such a football club playing at this level meets our notability guidelines. Crazy Boris with a RED beard 13:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous such homes across the world and there seems no point in highlighting just two, particularly since nothing notable has been identified. In the light of the discussion here, I think the page should be deleted and it can be recreated if at least two such homes get pages. TerriersFan (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment, as I said I'm fine with deleting them; since they're hospitals, they're obviously notable in and of themselves, so I would point out that your motivation in deleting this page is aesthetic, not a matter of notability; the page is disambiguating two entirely notable things. But deleting it out of aesthetic concern is perfectly fine, and probably trumps any concerns about future link integrity I might have had in creating the page, so carry on. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 13:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copy of F.C.Vitoria Cacheu. The title translates to :What is the name of the club". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded it, and this article seems to contradict itself in so many ways. The title is in Cyrillic, and spells "Kakoye nazvaniye kluba", but then the original author said it was about the "Estrela Negra de Bolama", but someone changed it to "F. C. Vitoria Cacheu". There is already a page "F.C.Vitoria Cacheu", but I may as well speedy that for being non-notable (googled, and it came up to only the article). – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 12:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging/moving the article requires further discussion on the talkpage to reach consensus. Skomorokh 01:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really deserve its own article, like an essay, though might be an idea to merge a bit of the info into Pope Phoenix-wiki 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, but advertising spam. StAnselm (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:HOAX. —dima/talk/ 03:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of a hit record make this ineligable for speedy deletion (despite earlier deletion as such) but there is no verification of notability and I can find nothing to support the claim - this could even be a hoax article. Ros0709 (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete for failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this professor sufficiently notable? Based on the publication list, I don't think so. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Rove (TV series). No indication of notability for these sketches. Dreadstar † 17:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected this, and was reverted. I have given an extension of my reasons for redirecting here—the reverting user failed to respond. I'll say it again; I see no real world assertion of notability, or no need for this to exist outside of a section in the main article. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has several issues. He hadn't released any album under more important label. The article lists three soundtracks released by him and Google has only torrents. Therefore, it fails criteria of WP:MUSIC. Also lack of reliable & verifiable sources. No third-party source. Visor (talk) 07:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge and Redirect to School District 36 Surrey as no independent notability has been established. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable elementary school, Wikipedia is not a directory Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to establish notability of the subject and lacks sufficient reliable sources which could verify such notability. JodyB talk 07:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:V, which consensus cannot supercede. The level of sourcing for this story is so poor that it does not appear that a verifiable article can currently be written about it. Sandstein (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is written in a POV manner, and on attempting to rewrite it with NPOV, I was unable to find any news articles that mention this event in either international news sources or domestic Nigerian news sources (including a thorough search of Allafrica.com). Google turns up many pages that reference the event, however they are all on Christian persecution websites that seek to advance a point of view.
It appears that the event may not have actually occurred, or if the event did occur, it is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Rjhatl (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Content available for transwikification on request. Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion overturned per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 26. The result is now no consensus per the DRV. Arkyan 20:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a guide to the keywords used in Magic: the Gathering. The last AFD was based upon WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE, but as was mentioned there, this article goes beyond just describing game effects, but a little into the development history of them. However, I don't think that the Magic keywords have any outside notability. All of the sources are "first-person" ones that were pulled from the Magic website and from the Magic developers.
The result was Delete, article fails the relevant notability guideline and is a crystal ball violation.. Davewild (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No information or sources here... really there is nothing here. Editor has a history of introducing inappropriate pages. SOme serious expansion will need to be done; otherwise should be deleted as non-notable. - eo (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources in order to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEB. This is a Search aggregator, not a dictionary. Has a few links but they seem to be unreadable, press releases or merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Google news yeilds nothing. Part of a larger spam campaign that seeded WP with spamlinks. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.Hu12 (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the admin of the site. Anyways, if wikipedia editors think it should be deleted, we are ready to accept the deletion/bans/etc, but of note I would like to point out I searched every medical dictionary (stedman, dorland, tabers) on google news, and none are noted. Also our site officially licenses the American Heritage Medical Dictionary and is not just a meta-search. You mentioned trivial coverage, but I can note over 5 books that reference our site, that are still being published. As for the "spam" please see my comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Request_unlisting_of_kmle.com The site was bookmarked enough to go to the main page on de.lico.us, so "normal" people do find the site helpful as well. Digirave (talk)
The result was delete. Wizardman 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable singer who fails WP:MUSIC. The only reason anyone has ever heard of her is because of her producer. If anything this should be redirected, there is no assertion of individual notability. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should almost be a speedy, as it basically a recreation of the article deleted here, but it sort of survived a convoluted AFD before, so here we go again. This article is completely unsourced, and doesn't define either the Hollywood or the Republican aspects. Is it only actual members of the Republican party? Anyone who's expressed right-of-center views? Anyone who has ever voiced support for a single Republican candidate? Anyone who has voiced opposition to a Democrat or a left-wing cause? If it were to clearly define that it is only actual members of the Republican Party, we might have something (assuming we could also define who is "Hollywood" and who isn't), but in that case we'd need a reliable citation for each and every entry being a confirmed member of that party. Right now there are zero such citations. Even if it could meet that criterion, the article is still of questionable usefulness, and another one of those potentially endless lists. There's a reason why there's no List of Hollywood Democrats page. Anyway, the new name aside, this article has all the problems of the earlier deleted article, without any of the sources. I fail to see why it's here. R. fiend (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Nakon 02:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The author removed the PROD tag after it had expired, so here we are. Article describes the family tree of a royal family inside the game Second Life; however, since notability is not inherited, this article fails the notability guidelines and doesn't back up its assertions with reliable sources establishing either its notability or significance. The article is also very much in-universe. I think this info should be maybe partially merged with Second Life. Any comments? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non-notability. Madviolinist (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable writer. Google pulls up nothing for his supposed book "Along For The Ride" except unrelated erotica titles and other irrelevant things. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously you have never heard of NASCAR. Your ignorance pertaining to sports should not cloud your judgment or anyone else's. Authors of single poems are given Wikipedia articles. This gentleman is a famous motorsports and college sports writer and has more than earned his place here. GeoffEighinger (talk) 05:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now added a few reliable external links to prove Woody's noteworthiness. I also noted his retirement in August, 2007 which is why he is not mentioned in The Tennessean article. GeoffEighinger (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Recreated as redirect to Blowgun. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism / dictdef. Google returns a smattering of hits, but no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. Action Jackson IV (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please. Blowtube is midwest vernacular. This entry will eventually be part of a larger collection of subculture terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octodomus (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
vanity page/no notability asserted. Prod removed previously Paulbrock (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (default keep). The onus is on those making the recommendation to delete an article, to demonstrate that it merits deletion. In this case, some of the deletion arguments presented were that the books written by this author were self-published; but this has been demonstrated to not be the case. Other statements in favor of delete include various descriptions of how specific websearches fail to produce sources that should exist for notable subjects. However, such websearches are not the sole arbiter of notability, and have routinely been shown to be a poor method of determining notability in many cases. There appears to be some misunderstanding of both the Wicca religion and Witches, which is understandable due to the high degree of fictional material on these subjects. All of that aside, there was no clear consensus to delete. The deletion policy directs that when a clear consensus to delete is not achieved, and is unlikley to be achieved through extended discussion, to keep the article. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the large number of books to her credit, I can't find significant coverage of her. A Google News search came up with 17 hits but almost all were for other people. She seems to be British and most are obit survivor in Rye, New York, USA. Looking at the WP:BIO guidelines pertaining to authors WP:BIO#Creative professionals, she doesn't appear to meet the standards for inclusion. The article has been tagged for citations since Dec 2007 and I suspect this is because there are none to be found. Pigman☿ 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rosencomet (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"but the facts are indeed these:
Now, mind you, I am interested in improving the article, not in starting a flame war with a bunch of witches who think they can put a hex on me. I am not afraid of witches. They do not exist. Lucifer does not exist either, but if a few Italian-American New Agers on the West Coast want to worship Him in order to get their old boyfriends back, so be it."
And this choice bit:
"If Wikipedia can offer a Holocaust Denial article that lets everybody know a certain group is seriously looped, then certainly it can do so about a pack of aging, overweight, chanting devil worshippers belly-dancing around the redwood trees." Rosencomet (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) You can try to spin it anyway you like. The fact remains that Sally Morningstar has no notability whatsoever as a witch. If she did, don't you think there would have been at least one news story about her as a notable witch since the beginning of time? And yet the GoogleNews Archive throws up exactly ZERO hits since the beginning of time: [32]. If she was a notable writer, don't you think there would have been at least one notable, verifiable news story about this writer since the beginning of time? And yet the GoogleNews Archive throws up exactly ZERO hits for her as a writer: [33]. You can scream that I'm "prejudiced" till you're purple in the face, but the fact remains that by every guideline regarding WP:RS and WP:BIO, this woman is nothing but a complete nobody. I understand that you appear to respect her personally, in terms of her unestablishable notability as a "witch" and a "writer," but Wikipedia is about following guidelines, not injecting personal views. The article should be deleted. Qworty (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly difficult to find independent reliable sources for verification. I've tried rewriting it and sourcing it, but it's been pretty much impossible. Wafulz (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete — Tivedshambo (t/c) 13:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:COATRACK of an article which violates WP:BLP1E. Lacks refs showing substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO Edison (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book, which I cannot find anything reliable on google. Page orphaned and has no context. Authour fails WP:BIO Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 04:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fancruft for an armor permutation in Halo 3. I believe it falls under Wikipedia is not a game guide, or possibly even speedy deletion policy A7. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 01:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been tagged as not having established notability for two months, and for being written like an advrtisement for four. I don't think it's going to improve. But, well, may as well give it one more chance for its notability to be demonstrated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted as A7 and salted by Jmlk1 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 06:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This band does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC - no album releases on major labels, nothing on the charts. ... discospinster talk 01:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is merely a summary of some random academic paper. No claim of its notablity, importance, external citations, etc. Angrysusan (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect. I ended up redirecting, as the information in Cryptopsy gives appropriate weight to Lord Worm already. The article's sources ([37] [38]) can be used, if anyone wishes. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A former member of a minor band, now working as an English teacher. English teachers now working as rock musicians, yes, but not the other way round, I think. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability--no reliable sources found in Google search. Delete. ~EdGl (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks extremely borderline in terms of notability, and given the article creator's name and the vaguely advertorial quality of the piece, I have to wonder whether there has been some over-egging of the notability (such things as the "countless art" donated to various redlinked organisations), and the only two blue-links on the article (other than the towns etc) are not to the expected items - there are no articles on the Heaven Sent or Forget Me Not referred to in the article. The linked website does little to stave off those concerns, and a websearch of "Laura Dahl" - Wikipedia and "Laura J. Dahl" - Wikipedia turns up almost nothing related to this Laura Dahl. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Winter's come early - it seems to be WP:SNOWing
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unreferenced. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]