The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bio of a non notable religious leader. Sources are questionable as far as asserting notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent)I of course agree with everything Phil has said. The more one puts reliably sourced material that this was "an internationally-known con man in the Kriya Yoga movement" the more one shows that he was wikipedia- notable - there is no "wikipedia-notable as a ...", there is just "notable" or "not notable". As Shannon Rose aptly puts it "the cause of notability doesn't matter at all." In my first post above where as mentioned above, I probably went to far on the "the", I noted that any claim to be "the" leader of Kriya Yoga is disputed. The argument that this obituary is not an obituary is very strange. Phil and I are defending the ordinary meaning and usage, and the burden of proof is on Shannon or others to show that the Miami Herald obit is not a reliable source lending proof of notability in the standard way used in countless AfDs. Of course it is possible that the writer and the Miami Herald accepted a bag of cash from this yogi's demented acolytes. It is also possible that Hariharananda is still alive, faked his death and payed for the obit, so he could kidnap Jimbo and take over Wikipedia. But we would need reliable (or any) sources for either belief to have any weight.John Z (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, Hariharananda's claim of being a disciple of Sri Yukteswar is rejected by just about everyone else except his own followers. It is generally regarded as a lie in the entire Kriya Yoga community (in which followers of Hariharananda are viewed as outcasts due to Hariharananda's bad reputation), in fact books and websites like this one abound. Self-Realization Fellowship and Ananda Sangha, the two biggest Kriya Yoga organizations in the world maintain that Hariharananda only came to the scene in the 1940s (when Sri Yukteswar was already dead) and that he was a brahmachari of Yogoda Satsanga Society, who also never met Yogananda in person (have you seen any photograph of them together?), that later broke away. I suggest that you read Swami Satyeswarananda Giri's Kriya: Finding the True Path and Sriyukteswar: A Biography, the latter has notes of Swami Satyananda Giri's testimonial regarding the claims of Hariharananda.
I couldn't have made a better argument in favour of notability myself. Let's have references to these abundant books and websites in the article, rather than argue about deleting an article on a subject who is notable enough to receive all of this attention. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A generic Christian rock band with no reliable independent sources, no assertion why they are in any way notable. Guy (Help!) 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding their recorded output -
section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion states that "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." Willet meets the notability requirement for music Willet's page by having two charted hits ("We're Not Keeping This Quiet" and "Taste") on CHR. Bathysphere (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just to clarify, it was originally considered for speedy deletion, which is why my above post is worded as such. Bathysphere (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge into Ruby programming language. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, WP:WEB, has negligible g-hits. The only possible bonus is that g-books return some results (on the flip side, they don't look explanatory, and most of the books are How-to Ruby guides). The article doesn't assert notability in the least. Leonard(Bloom) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Mad (magazine)#The Fundalini Pages. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the article weaselly ("may be best known"), but it's also a permanent stub. There are no reliable sources pertaining to Gerhart or his Bitterman comic strip, which is only a small comic that appears in one small section of Mad. (See also this.) This article is so short that I don't see any point in even retaining a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 17:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in text references point back to this article; no notability has been established. Mazeau (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable non-degree-granting university; text is largely (if not completely) a copy of text from the homepage, which is also the only source cited. Very, very few online source, none reliable or secondary; zero new hits. Tertiary institution, but not automatically notable per WP:SCHOOLS because it does not grant degrees. Samuel Tan 05:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus between keep and merge, so default to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO; non-notable person DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 02:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Political group with no assertion of notability, according to the ibiblio reference they publish an "oddball newsletter" "on a very irregular basis". Tagged as needing references for the last 9 months. Was nominated for deletion in September 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society) and kept, but no keep argument was provided there which considered Wikipedia policy, and I don't believe it meets our current standards. No particular improvement in the article since September 2006. --Stormie (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the list of libraries related to another item, remember that if you have a library card from a participating library, you can access the accessmylibrary.com database free of charge. --Eastmain (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Article userified as requested Gazimoff 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tagged with notability concerns since Oct 2007. Zero verifiable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, unsourced, repeatedly tagged as such. The best I found is Perambalur police, which confirms that a hamlet of this name exists. Google searches for Keelakanavai, Keelakkanavai, Keezhakkanavai or கீழக்கனவாய் provide no other sources whatsoever, and a grand total of less than 15 total hits, including Wikipedia. Different versions of the article provided conflicting information: Elevation 1,316 m, population 855, elevation 6 m, population 500, elevation 143 m, population 400. Huon (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No discernable notability - the external links are all self-generated and not even about the person in question, but about his band. Stijndon (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. It seems reliable sources have been found which establishes notability for the article. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that this film has been released or meets future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be found to show that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[5], [6]. Not exactly extensive coverage, but it has been noticed. Black-Velvet 14:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Much of the debate seems, while on topic, to be sidetracked. Wizardman 15:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC Spoilydoily (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This song does not meet any of the above —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.154.131 (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
**Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Spoilydoily (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable on-screen character in professional wrestling Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOT, NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Aaronw (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge."
In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article.
The result was redirect to Southern Mississippi To The Top. Wizardman 15:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This song and its gesture seem quite notable around the university, but...what about outside the university? Mississipi, USA, the World? I see no importance and no encyclopedic context on this article. Btw, if this nomination succeeds, I'll probably nominate most of the articles intoduced by the author of this one. All of them are related to the University of Southern Mississippi and most seem not to assert notability. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New puzzle type with no attempt to establish any sort of notability. No reliable sources, just some link to a message board that's presented as possibly the origin of the puzzle. Original version of article was small and seemed to have been created solely to advertise a website to play the game. Google search for "XKnight Game" finds only 7 hits: that website with the game to play (saghaei.net), this Wikipedia article, and a couple of message boards where "Saghei" posted info about it. Pure promotion for a horribly trivial new puzzle type most likely created by the guy who made this article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author's response: In the last revision I tried to make it notable and I'm afraid further attempt may be illogical. Whether the topic is inherently notable I am sure it is. The proof, which I can not include in the article, is that I myself with a totally different background and career (but interested in math) made a lot of effort to write it. I think notability is a very relative term. To whom it is notable and to whom it is not, it depends on the personal attitude and interests.
Regarding the lack of reliable source it is due to the fact that it is indeed new. Although its base (the knight tour problem) is very old, it is a new puzzle (as DreamGuy stated "A new puzzle"). Prior to writing this article I found only two source by searching the web, and they were already initiated by myself (as DreamGuy detected). How can I include a reliable source if it does not exist? Although there are a large body of references regarding knight's tour problem none of them addressed this new puzzle idea. and I hate to make the reference section inflate unnecessarily by including references to knight's tour problem. The question arise is how the readers believe the idea, and how to prevent falsification? I think this needs a critical mind familiar with the topic, to criticize it and possibly disprove it. This may need retaining the article for a longer period than 5 days. None of the comments given by the DreamGuy or Mukadderat discuss the issue or criticize it, and they sufficed to say it is not notable. It may be better first to show some familiarity with the topic then convince the people that it is not notable.
Addressing the original version of the article as small and advertising, is unfair. You should judge the present state of the article. Initial size of the article is not an important issue and it may grow in time by further contribution. The referenced web site has noting to advertise and its reference was deleted in the revision. indeed the mentioned software is free open source, therefore it is not very difficult to deduce that motivation for linking to the address can be academic. Anyhow pure placement of one's web page address does not prove it's advertisement.
I realized that use of XKnight term may be considered an instance of neologism. In the revision I used it only in the reference section to refer to the forum topic. I was unable (or did not know how) to change the title of the page. It may be more appropriate to title it as knight tour game. In this way the google search will brings huge amounts of information to convince it's not a horribly trivial new puzzle. --Simnaser (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable record label, home to dozens of non-notable Myspace artists. Fails to establish notabilty and reads like an advert. Lugnuts (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Proof (rapper). Wizardman 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hip hop group which fails WP:BAND and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
let it stay, jdilla R.I.P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.47.106 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Due to the sheer size of this debate I was a little worried in closing it, but the deletes have both the numbers and the better arguments, ergo consensus. Wizardman 19:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A footballer who plays in the top division of the Faroe Islands league, which is clearly not fully professional, and therefore he fails WP:ATHLETE. Was prodded, but removed by the article's creator with the rationale "delete irrelevant". пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This is an unnecessary fork of Mining. The author states that it conforms to the standard format of Lists of basic topics, but the aim there is to create articles that are outlines of their respective subject areas and "are intended to help the beginner become familiar with each subject". That's a good idea but shouldn't become a shibboleth. Compare this particular article with for example List of basic classical studies topics - that will "help the beginner become familiar with each subject" but this article adds nothing that's not already in Mining. It should be deleted and redirected. andy (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod, tag removed without improvement. Films not yet in production don't meet WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. As noted, no prejudice exists against creation of this article when the event is imminent, such as when candidates have actually filed paperwork to become candidates. Speaking for myself, I would recommend seeking counsel from Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics, as they deal with upcoming elections all the time. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An IP removed the proposed deletion tag I added, so I'm taking this to AfD. This seems to be a clear case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and standard procedure is against articles such as this one. Enigma message 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect as already done, without predjudice. An encyclopedic artricle might be possible on the subject, so if someone decides to write a verified, referenced article on the subject, we shouldn't hold that back. The best thing we can do for our readers right now, is point them to the cat. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giving this the courtesy of an AfD given that it's been up for four years - but this is wretchedly bad, says nothing that isn't said better on the articles on individual countries, is highly dubious in its definition of "Eastern Europe", and nobody has shown any sign of cleaning it up in the year since someone raised concerns on the talkpage. (Note to closing admin; this article is currently the subject of a discussion at WR, so this AfD may be visited by some of our more colourful characters.) – iridescent 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete (A7). -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A wholly unreferenced article on a nn band. Fails WP:MUSIC. VanLit (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references or sources, Author is the inventor so WP:COI, Absolutely NO related google hits or google news hits. Not notable. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, no consensus to delete. Any merge proposals are an editorial matter. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With no sources, I question the notability of this. Otterathome (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN gangster. He was a mobster, he might have been a member of this gang, he's the father of this guy, he was killed... Article shows nothing in the way of notability. Adolphus79 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Okiefromokla questions? 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Urban dictionary entry with no stated notability except for two trivial mentions in popular media. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NM, non-notable person with no coverage DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 20:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced dictdef. Neologism? Corvus cornixtalk 20:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A disputed prod. No references or sources to demonstrate widespread -- or any -- usage of this protologism; apparently original research; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Fraggle Rock#Feature film. Wizardman 15:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a planned film whose inception was announced in May 2008, according to Variety. It has not begun filming yet, so per the notability guidelines for future films, the article does not yet warrant existence. The director, according to his blog, is only scripting so far. No prejudice against recreation if filming does begin on this project. Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable protologism (WP:NEO). Prod declined. Amalthea (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a rather obvious violation of WP:fringe. While some language gropus are universally accepted (Romance languages and others are controversial (Altaic languages), the so called Vasconic languages are not even controversial - they are universally rejected as the brain child of Theo Vennemann. Unlike the case of Altaic languages in which a minority of linguists defend their existence, no linguist not immediately connected to Vennemann has defended the idea of Vasconic languages, quite the opposite. The only publications on the issue are by Vennemann and published in non-notable journals. If anyone thinks that the idea merits mentioning, it could be included as a paragrapgh under the article on Vennemann, but as the idea is merely unproven and universally rejected invention of Vennemann, I fail to see how it merits an article on its own. Wikipedia should include information on both accepted and controversial theories, but not necessarily on any far-fetched phantasy, as per WP:fringe JdeJ (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason applies; the Atlantic languages are also a personal invention by Theo Vennemann without any acceptance whatsoever. In this case, the article not only violates WP:fringe but also creates unnecessary confusion as there is a hypothetical language group by the same name, Atlantic languages. Although not universally accepted by linguists, there are at least scientific arguments for and against the latter group, unlike Vennemann's ignored personal ideas.[reply]
The result was delete. DS (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a made-up word - no relevant Ghits (this article and an unrelated blog entry), no entry in dictionary.com, probably hoax or something the creator just made up. ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G11 by DGG, non-admin closure. No prejudice against a rewrite, as Eastmain is usually good at salvaging articles. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 00:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be spam IndulgentReader (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable ride. No reliable sources found. Twinkle crapped out on me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was G11 by Orangemike , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A booking service for private jet hire. Questionable notability and, assumig the image tags are correct, the author has a strong COI. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. The last debate closed on July 18 as a default keep. This is way too soon to be relisting. Take it to DRV or the talk page if you think the last closure was invalid. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was originally deleted and redirected to conservapedia after an unanimous afd that pointed out its lack of verifiability and notability. The article was resurrected and failed a speedy delete because it was not the exact same article. However the AFD that followed resulted in no consensus. I am bringing it back up because I feel that the arguments made to keep the article are invalid and all of the substantial problems that lead to an unanimous delete and redirect are still present.
The basic rational for deleting is that the subject does not have enough reliable sources to create a neutral, and verifiable article that fits the basic standard outlined in biographies of living persons. The sources used in the article are either trivial, include only trivial mention of the subject, or are related to conservapedia.
Andrew Schlafly does not inherit notability from Conservapedia, or from his mother. His article must stand or fall based on sources available for him. I would like to call particular attention to an analysis of sources given by User:David Eppstein in the last AFD to quote him:
All of the issues of verifiability and notability are still present, there has been no substantial movement towards addressing any of the issues, expanding the article or dealing with neutrality issues. My recommendation is that this be deleted and setup as a redirect to conservapedia. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. It's a very detailed article, but alas the consensus is obvious. Wizardman 15:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A specific product air pollution limitation device. Clearly written by someone with a COI and looks like spam. Does it say anything which cannot be added to wet scrubber. (This is not a merge discussion because the title would not be appropriate for a redirect.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators: please make note of sections that need alteration to meet approval. Also feel free to note areas that do not need correction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnassau (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Was there a section(s) that looked good and informative? Was there a section(s) that you did not like? Where do "voice" modifications need to be made? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnassau (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Only one argument was really given on the page besides just notable/non-notable. Wizardman 15:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person. Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This biography is all original or unsourced research and is mostly an advertisement. Not notable to boot. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Isn't most of his infomation here anyway? Dalejenkins | 18:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LIST. Dalejenkins | 18:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. — CharlotteWebb 23:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant advertising, sounds like a press release, extensive POV issues, questionable notability Rhrad (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus; (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demo album without indication of notability. PROD was contested with comment: "this is one of the earliest demos of death metal". While I would like to add a "citation needed", in any case it's not a valid criterion per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Sources are missing. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable coalition. Problems with WP:RS are obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues. Searches on Yahoo and Google revealed little nontrivial coverage. WP:COI doesn't help either; author is IntegratedBiomolecule (talk · contribs). Just barely escapes an A7 or G11 in my view. Blueboy96 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pie is good (Apple is the best) 17:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Not too clear consensus for deletion here, but there is solid consensus on Wikipedia at large that, in the absence of clear evidence of substantial coverage, demos are considered non-notable by default. Refs brought up in the AfD are trivial mentions, thus unsatisfactory. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This demo album fails WP:MUSIC#Albums; the links in the references section do not contain substantial coverage of the subject. PROD was contested with comment: "Deleted prod as the recording is produced by a notable band - in fact is the first recording released by Gyroscope (satisfies Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums)" This is, I think, a misinterpretation of the guideline. B. Wolterding (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per A1. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreates information in Nintendo DS#Hardware and provides no additional information BigHairRef | Talk 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete a3 no real content, a1 insufficient context, no sources, WP:NEO, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be only a newly coined neologism and a dictionary definition and therefore wouold fail to pass WP:N BigHairRef | Talk 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g1 nonsense, a1 no context, no sources, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a newly coined neologism and a dictionary definition and therefore would fail to pass WP:N BigHairRef | Talk 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus (default as keep). --PeaceNT (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page appears to be an attempt to circumvent reverts of links from various articles to company's webpage by attempting to establish notability. Company's software does not appear widely used. Article makes broad claims regarding use by citing a couple primary sources, which doesn't seem sufficient to me. EagleFalconn (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the same token, Companies listed on NASDAQ category contains hundreds of Wiki pages about commercial entities. Such as another major competitor Accelrys. Simulations Plus is just one of them. Why single it out? Hence, if you want to be fair, then along with deleting Simulations Plus page you should also delete all of the NASDAQ pages.
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. The article is only sourced by the group's website and consists of its claims about itself. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This biography reads like a CV, is full of original or unsourced research and is biased to the point of looking like an advert for the company Cheskin. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 15:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn. It's just one website, no notable mentions outside. shreevatsa (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. BJTalk 03:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixtape. No sources at all. It's all original research and future predictions. Plus the alleged single "Black Juice" is obviously fake, as it was already deleted in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Juice. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 17:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Tan ǀ 39 23:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO; lacks notability with no substantial coverage. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of the notability of this topic, and many of the assertions in the article seem dubious. "As hairy arms are mostly seen in men, this could be thought as an exclusively homosexual attraction." So women can't have sexual fetishes? We're then told that most of this material features Latino women. Now, absent a history from John Paraskeva Rushton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this might be merely an OR observation, but this user has been engaged in some borderline racial and ethnic baiting in the past. deranged bulbasaur 16:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism/marketing term ukexpat (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted in the prod process (even with two prod tags), now recreated. This is a procedural nomination, no opinion from my side. Tone 09:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How can I change the page to keep it from being deleted?--patrick.c.knight (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likely non-notable attempt at a list of IPOs by a company. I'm sure there is a lot of information on individual companies getting "IPOed" by this particular company, but I'm not sure if the subject as a whole is notable. Samuel Tan 07:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable subject. Part of the Ben 10 canon, where there is plenty of information. This just isn't important or notable to the show. At a push it could be merged into the Ben 10 article (though with a considerable re-write) Ged UK (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a non notable church. The article seems to be written by a member of the church for the purpose of advertising. Nothing special happens at the church that would make it more notable than the millions of other churches in the world. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Call option. It's a one sentence article. Nothing to merge. I'll go type "also called a "clean up call" over there. Keeper ǀ 76 15:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a dictionary definition of a piece of financial slang. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
questionable notability: assistant director of a bollywood film, unreferenced director of a yet to be released film, smells of vanity ccwaters (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on a bootleg that only seems to be available in torrent or p2p form. Does not pass WP:MUSIC (as it doesn't seem to be a commercially-released product), and is a bit peacock-y and weasle-y if you ask me... There's no mention of it in the artist page (other than discography) and nothing much here to merge into the artist page. Booglamay (talk) - 14:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, Edison has provided sources to verify existence and strong precedent is to keep articles on verifiable villages. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly notable village. "Its very famous place with Funny stories" it is not enough to pass WP:N, I'm afraid. M0RD00R (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article is about a minor film employee, with no real claims to notability. TN‑X-Man 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sources are not reliable. The Mason question is irrelevant either way, as pointed out below. Chick Bowen 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about an author, but does not pass WP:CREATIVE. There is no claim to notability, either for the subject or for the books he wrote. The article relies purely on one website for sourcing - a website which is written by the subject. The article has been tagged as needing additional verification (with the ((refimprove)) tag) since last November, and no reliable independant sources have been added. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy close. A duplicate article is already at Afd; we don't need to discuss its merits twice. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 13:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:HAMMER -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete (G4 -recreation of material deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion) by Wafulz. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A single that isn't notable from a an album that isn't notable. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:COI. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 13:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Wizardman 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced (wp:v and wp:blp) and does not indicate notability (wp:bio). Speedy nom was deleted without fixing article. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-01t11:38z 11:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge; (action to be taken by others). The nomination did not provide any justification for a delete outcome, which suggests this was the wrong venue for the discussion to begin with. Although some participants opined that deletion was the proper course of action, these minority opinions were countered by a preponderance of merge or keep opinions. The discussion did not reach a consensus as to exactly what content was to be merged where, so it is not reasonable to expect a closing administrator to carry out the merge. As well, AfD is not 'articles for editing' or 'articles for merge'.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not needed, it can be merged, and is in need of attention. The article hasn't been edited for months (except the addition of merge and clean-up tags). --CG was here. (T - C - S - E) 20:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category: AfD debates (Places and transportation)
The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:HAMMER -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. No consensus to delete, and consensus even to merge is spotty. However, the redirect is reasonable, and the content can be removed from the target article through talk page discussion if there is feeling that it doesn't belong there. Chick Bowen 21:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the WP:VWP:N Derby, this horse doesn't finish. Serious consideration and shameless equine puns are welcome. no jokes, please. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Mint Juleps for All Shapiros10 contact meMy work 13:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - first thing, this is nothing frivolous - if you feel the item is not of sufficient interest fine but this is a genuinely intended attempt to include information about a flag design that is in existence and which I feel deserves some wider notoriety. I didn't realise that geocities hosted sites are unacceptable - this is the site where the design originated so it seemed pertinent to include it as the main reference, what exactly did I do wrong here? No the other reference does not metion the flag, why should it? It does mention the horse designs which are typical of the county and on which the horse design flag is based. Should one not include information about such origins then? There is nothing here dreamt up on an afternoon so perhaps we can leave the puns and sacrcasm to one side. If this article fails to meet your eaxcting standards that's ok but I would appreciate a little more guidance and a little less ribaldry or I shall just inform associates and colleagues that Wikipedia is full of clowns and jokers and to refrain from using it as any sort of reference. Vexilo - August 31
To Pedro, thanks, my faith is restored. I fully accept that articles will be deleted if they do not reach the high standards you set and appreciate your reasoning here. To Ecoleetage, it’s not a question of minding the criticism or being stressed by it, I just don’t feel your comments were particularly helpful. Yes I have been making contributions, to Wikipedia from time to time but I am no expert, indeed I find it a bit of a quagmire but if I come across something that I think may be useful I like to provide new information and learn from the errors if it is rejected. I am sure you resent terms like “clown” and “joker” but such phrasing is inspired by the tone you set.
Yes there was never a competition for the Wiltshire flag, the design that has achieved some recognition as the county flag was initiated by a local firm with great resources, which allowed it to achieve huge publicity and effectively brow beat the local council into accepting the proposal as the county flag. However, it has no more real validity as the county flag than this proposal, which did not get into the public eye as well because it was the creation of a lone individual. I just thought I might even up the playing field a little by giving it a public airing here. I suppose it might be possible to include its illustration and a line or two of its background as a paragraph in the article on the Great Bustard flag – I leave this for your consideration.
Vexilo August 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexilo (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 07:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems an autobiographical puff-piece for a non-notable entertainer Grahame (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/physicians/002032-220-e.html (WP:CSD#G12)
Doesn't appear to be notable, no references, google search turns up little of relevance (eg searching "Steven Singh" + Meknes gives [41]. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More neologism shenanigans. And if these guys are going to attack "Barak Obama," they should at least give him the courtesy of correctly spelling his name. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it's mentioned in passing in Conservapedia's article ("Its entry on Obama also asserts that he "has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action"). That's surely enough! TheresaWilson (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
The result was A7/G12, take your pick. Either way, it's gone. TravellingCari 16:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Local fire brigade of no obvious notability. Problems with WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article on Pages for Translation thingy for three weeks now. Time to delete Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a blatant copyright infringement of http://www.stalliongroup.biz/promoters.asp (WP:CSD#G12). PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about some Nigerian businessmen who were deported and then let back into Nigeria, but who don't seem to be notable for any other reason than the scandal. According to WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS, I am nominating it for deletion. Slashme (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demo tape, fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. The article is unsourced, but says at least that the tape is "extremely rare", so independent coverage is unlikely to exist. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demo albums typically fail WP:MUSIC#Albums; this one does not seem to be an exception. No sources are given. PROD was contested without comment. B. Wolterding (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, consensus is that he is notable. Davewild (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not seem notable to me. All of the "references" are from the same website (his place of employment), and 3 of them are userpages from one of his employees. I don't see any 3rd party sources, I don't see anything at all that actually illistrates what he's done that has made him notable sumnjim talk with me·changes 11:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Delete CSD A7. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Change to Weak Keep Somewhat notable, nut needs more references Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't contribute anything to Wikipedia. While some of the content is indeed relevant, it is already dealt with in various other articles dealing with Finland Swedes and the History of Finland. This article consists of nothing else but a text in very bad English without any Wikilinks or any sources and without adding any new information not already found, in much better and more encyclopedic form, in other articles. JdeJ (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, however I've merged the histories due to the merge performed by MickMacNee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable road accident BarretBonden (talk) 11:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per SNOW I have merged the usable content to Wilts & Dorset#2008 Poole Harbour accident. I suggest closing this Afd as keep to preserve the GFDL history. MickMacNee (talk) 00:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 13:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is another article from Aston Taylor, who recently has had a number of articles deleted as hoaxes. There are no hits to establish his claims; fails WP:V and WP:N Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very short with unclear details. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY. The article has been moved and reworked to focus on the incident, per WP:BLP1E. That the incident meets the Wikipedia's guidelines on notability is not remotely in doubt. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 00:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable homicide victim. Jmount (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)) |
keep Other Canadian murder victims have pages, even though their noteworthiness was limited to the manner in which they did. For example, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy have pages in addition to Paul Bernardo.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.252.233 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 3 August 2008
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Insufficient evidence of notability, so a separate page can't be kept. History can be restored on request if anyone wants to merge & redirect to Frank Iero. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very very tenuous notability - the only claim is that it's fronted by the lesser known of MCR Sceptre (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Gazimoff 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:HAMMER. Sceptre (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced WP:OR, WP:SYN essay, fork of Poles article, written by disruptive [53] WP:SPA. There is nothing worth merging into any other article. The article had previously been submitted for proposed deletion (WP:PROD) but that was contested with an argument that "You would have to be a chauvinist to delete this page."[54]. M0RD00R (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure unadulterated original research and should thus be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I know next to nothing about theater, but I can't find any evidence that this man is notable. What does everyone here think? Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily Deleted. Non-admin closure. Reyk YO! 08:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article content is utter nonsense. Unsourced and likely a hoax. Beemer69 chitchat 06:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted per CSD A3 - appeared to be a family home and no claim of notability was made. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not show any notability. The PROD was removed without explanation. triwbe (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom Although similar pages like List of Lost awards and nominations and List of awards won by The Simpsons have achieved FL quality, I don't know whether Carnivàle needs the same type of list. For one, the show ran for only 24 episodes and seems rather obscure than highly-acclaimed (despite the number of awards, mostly in well-deserved technical categories). Next, this list is slightly redundant since nearly all awards are already listed in List of Carnivàle episodes, Characters of Carnivàle, and an overview at Carnivàle#Awards. Plus, wikipedia is not IMDb (award link) and this could set an IMO bad precedent. And finally (which is my main reason for this AfD), the four (old) articles of Carnivàle form a featured topic (link), and I doubt that I can improve this list to FL level to not lose that status. – sgeureka t•c 05:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demo albums generally aren't notable. I don't see anything that makes either of these notable. No reliable sources or anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overly short list,redundant to Category:Television shows set in Connecticut. Survived AfD in 2005 with result of "no consensus". Only two sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overly short list. We already have Category:Television shows set in Michigan, so I feel that this list is redundant and too short to stand alone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 04:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to violate WP:CRYSTAL in that it discusses an album that is untitled and unfunded. This album does not appear to meet the guidelines for notability. Recommend delete and merge what content exists into Psychostick. Clubjuggle T/C 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, A7. Blueboy96 17:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprodded by creator. I see no assertion of notability, but wanted to give the article the benefit of the doubt and the creator the opportunity to add notability and verifiable sources. (He had listed a source that seemed to be about Roberto Rosales. ) I did not find anything helpful on Google. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. This was possibly a POINTy nomination given a.) this AfD was the user's first edit, b.) the article is undoubtedly GA class, and c.) the arguments presented here don't really hold water. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 05:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usual Wiki fancruft / non-consideration for inclusion in an encyclopedia / advertising. The article describes a fan-produced album provided as a digital download on OCReMix.org, which is an independent fansite that combines special interests related to music and video games. It's size and/or references really aren't a consideration here. It simply isn't worth mentioning in an encyclopedia no matter how you spin it. Shalot334 (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy Keep - The Good article status of this article is not a fluke, it has actual notability, at most you could argue for a merge somewhere, but I have to laugh at your claims of a total lack of notability. Did you look at the article before you nominated it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted. Tawker (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of an apparent nest of articles created by user User:Aston Taylor. I believe that the facial claims of notability are grossly exaggerated, but since they are there, this can't be speedied. A "musician" with no released music hardly passes WP:MUSIC, and the martial arts achievements are not well specified. Co-nominations for the rest of this stuff forthcoming. deranged bulbasaur 02:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating:
deranged bulbasaur 02:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 'Deranged bulbasaur' this article is not consistent with the general guidelines set inWP:MUSIC. The apparent notability is exaggerated and there is little mention of achievements with this artist. I would also nominate:
The result was Deleted. Tawker (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged children's book. Pure hoax - Google knows nothing about it. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:SNOW . Tiptoety talk 17:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable song, it is just rumors CloversMallRat (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP/WP:ORG. Not notable. Ave Caesar (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE (speedied as G3). Alexf42 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single hint of this person even existing outside of this article. PROD-NN was (profanely) contested by page author. Vianello (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete, A7. Lenticel (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Claimed to have been in a movie, no mention on IMDB or Google. No other notable claims except being friends with famous people. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Western astrology. I cannot in good conscience merge uncited and difficult to verify content, but it remains in the history for anyone else to do so, assuming reliable sources are provided. Chick Bowen 20:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited article on something which may or may not be of some minor significance, but the article does not say why. Wikipedia appears to be leading the world in documenting this. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 15:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This won an "encouragement" prize from one festival and an award from another, redlinked festival, but it has never had any sources or inbound links. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, in 1983, the term was co-coined by some Amrican teens who formed the band Possessed and labeled their demo "Death Metal".