The result was redirect to Breakout (album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no refernces for the page and doesn't meet WP:MUSIC#Songs standards. Dontyoudare (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Article is now referenced and no longer spam. --PeaceNT (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite a New York Times-linked article as a reference, this article is little more than a commercial for TRX. Unless someone wants to rewrite the article to focus solely on the exericse without hyping the corporate sponsor, I would have to say this WP:SPAM candidate needs to go. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book that satisfies no criteria of WP:NB. Also, duplicate article -- a nearly identical article already exists at "Camelot Lost", which I also nominated for deletion earlier. (I would have nominated them both at the same time, except that I just noticed this article... not sure if there's a way to combine the two AfD entries, but if there is and a more experienced editor wants to do so, then of course by all means be my guest.) --Smeazel (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've boldly changed the incorrectly titled article to a redirect and closed that AfD. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"Camelot Lost" and consider those arguments also, as the articles were identical.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article shoots itself in the foot in its lede paragraph, by saying that all but one meeting has been disproven/etc by the US government, and that people who have reviewed it have found that no links exist. Thus, it is a 200 kilobyte long conspiracy theory vehicle (which the article itself says). I'm not sure what part of WP:NOT this violates, but this sort of article isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete by Jimfbleak as blatant advertising/being non-notable. (non-admin closure) Cunard (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previously speedied twice, under G11 (spam) and A7 (nn group). Vague assertions of notability ("according to critics") but no specific citations despite several requests. The best we've had is assurances that they've featured in the Seven Days newspaper (I can't find anything substantial on the website, just contact and gig listings) and The Radiator radio station, but no specific details for either. As it stands, the article seems to fail WP:MUSIC. — Matt Eason (Talk • Contribs) 22:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). However, the merge to Paris Hilton is strongly recommended. Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page should never have been forked out of Paris Hilton. Information is unencyclopedic and presumes a real stance from Paris Hilton on energy policy in the United States presidential election. This gives undue weight to the position advanced in that video and is, essentially, a hoax (or, at best, false satire). Almost all of the sources trace back to funnyordie.com, where it was originally posted. I removed a section titled "commentary" which contained little more than a bulleted list of news articles that mentioned this video, but did not explain or elaborate with any meaningful encyclopedic content. It should be merged back to Paris Hilton. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I restored its list of notable commentary, this time adding it to its external links section. Justmeherenow ( ) 04:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "serial entrepreneur". Suspected autobio. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
American physician and author. Feels like an autobio and veiled spam for the guy's books. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted as a blatant copyright violation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neologism / original research. Minute number of Google hits. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent autobiography of an apparently non-notable blogger and staffer for Hot or Not. While it does indeed have references, one is a tangential mention of him in the context of his website; one is a now-deleted post on www.365gay.com; one is a reference to an uncited claim on another Wikipedia page which was itself inserted by the creator of this article, and one makes no mention of the point it's supposed to be referencing – 'He is now the third ranked celebrity blogger in the world, and nicknamed "The Canadian Perez Hilton"' – the actual quote is 'In the short time since IsThisHappening’s late-summer debut, it has established an audience of 200,000 unique visitors per month, most with Canadian IP addresses'. – iridescent 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Article has references, but consensus is that this level of coverage is insufficient for the subject to meet WP:MUSIC. First keep comment agrees that evidence of substantial coverage is unclear, second and third keep comment do not address this issue. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band, independent releases only, no contract with an established label, only claim of notability is the participation of the member of Digable Planets. Corvus cornixtalk 21:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References and links are directly connected with a product that is not a Nirvanix product or service (please see awards reference). Focus should be on Nirvanix and their cloud storage platform rather then information that is slanderous and manipulated.
Nirvanix company profile should read:
Nirvanix is the premier “Cloud Storage” platform provider. Nirvanix has built a global cluster of storage nodes collectively referred to as the Storage Delivery Network (SDN), powered by the Nirvanix Internet Media File System (IMFS). The SDN intelligently stores, delivers and processes storage requests in the best network location, providing the best user experience in the marketplace. With the ability to store multiple file copies in multiple geographic nodes, the SDN enables unparalleled data availability for developers, businesses and enterprises. The Nirvanix SDN is optimized to handle very large files and enables any consumer or enterprise Web application to scale instantly, meeting the demands for storing and delivering millions of files from video and audio to documents and backup files worldwide. By using the Nirvanix SDN, versus alternatives such as adding network storage systems or using first generation online storage platforms, businesses are guaranteed a shorter time-to-market, reduced costs, and also benefit from better flexibility and control for their operations. In addition to its superior network and storage technologies, Nirvanix works to maintain its outstanding reputation with its customers with unparalleled developer and 7x24 enterprise support. Founded in 2007, Nirvanix is a privately held company headquartered in San Diego, California and backed by world-class investors including Intel Capital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdude89 (talk • contribs) — Yellowdude89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability or importance, no independent coverage, fails WP:BAND Madcoverboy (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was deleted (CSD A7) by Orangemike. NAC. Cliff smith talk 20:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of importance or notability, appears to fail WP:CORP notability Madcoverboy (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. While a straight vote-count leads to a tie or no consensus, most of the keep "votes" are in the manner of WP:WAX and WP:BIGNUMBER. Stifle (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on a non-notable YouTube personality. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page replicates (I assume the author has copied and pasted) information that can be found at Rafael Nadal. No new content and it is not being updated. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, at any rate in its amended form, so default to keep. Sandstein 16:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unencyclopedic list of every person in film, TV, a music video or computer game who has ever worn a catsuit. If this article is going to get any further, it needs to establish notability and present reliable sources giving substantial coverage of the subject "catsuits in popular culture". It doesn't cite any references covering the subject and I can't find any. Hence the article is always going to consist of original research drawn from unrelated references and isn't going to make a coherent article. There isn't even any indication that catsuits played a part in any plot - merely that a character happened to wear one. There is already a summary of this page in catsuit and the subject is not worth a seperate article. Hut 8.5 19:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article appears to lack sufficient notability for inclusion: the subject does not seem to have received non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. An online search for sources, including a standard web search (link) and Google News and Books searches, yields sources that are unreliable or provide only directory-level coverage of the subject, primarily in connection with her role in Dirty Sanchez: The Movie. Her other acting roles include (see IMDb) two single-episode appearances, a minor role in Shoreditch, and something related to Eve Online. Tagged with ((notability)) since June 2007. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research and crystal ball gazing to promote a non-notable film. Scjessey (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN gangster... He was a criminal... he was friends with these guys... he owned a laundromat... he was murdered, but his dogs survived... the one reference provided is only a very short blurb about this individual being involved with Stevie Hughes (who's article has already been deleted)... it seems his claim to notability is the fact he was friends with Hughes, and was killed in the same car... fails WP:N, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:ONEVENT... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Non-admin closure: WP:CSD#G7 -- user has blanked the page. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not having played in a fully professional regular season game, this player fails WP:ATHLETE. Possible recreation at end of first participation in a regular season game. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy redirect to Cairn as this stub is an obvious duplicate.(non-admin closure) - Icewedge (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Dave Logan (defensive lineman). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Space: Above and Beyond Episodes. Mandsford (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to List of Space: Above and Beyond episodes. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No meaningful content. Octane (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to cryptographic hash function. PhilKnight (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unreferenced for over two years, fails the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not establish notability, reads like an advert. ffm 15:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
String delete. The article contains no reliable sources establishing notability of yourBusinessChannel, and in fact most of the cited sources do not discuss yourBusinessChannel at all. I was not able to locate any reliable-source coverage, multiple searches turned up nothing but the blogs, press-releases, social networking sites, and of course the company's own site. --Clubjuggle T/C 16:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am gathering the authorative sources to meet the editorial requirments.
There will be many including stories from major UK Media Outlets such as the Scotsman and Daily Telegraph, in both the print and online publications.
I am doing all I can to ensure that the page is up to spec. Can we please hold off deletion while I collect and post these reference materials? --Catweezel1200 (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added new references to the article. While I will continue to collect and add more reference material, I hope these meet the reliable-source coverage criteria you are concerned about. Catweezel1200 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to 1906 San Francisco earthquake, where there is a one-line mention about the person. Surviving an earthquake and having an obituary aren't sufficient reasons for notability.--PeaceNT (talk) 10:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because you survived an earthquake doesn't make you notable. As a side note, only 89 Googles; seems that she hasn't done anything besides survive the earthquake. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does she warrant mention in the List of centenarians? It's debatable. She was eye-witness to an event of long-lasting historical interest, but seemed to have lived a perfectly ordinary life thereafter. Her Chronicle obit even mentions that she requested no funeral service. Probably Delete is justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the List of centenarians, Weule’s name technically could be included at present because it isn’t a List of Notable Centenarians. But the centenarians article shows that even an incomplete list would be thousands of names long, and the present List is one of notables. I therefore submit that: Irma Mae Weule’s article be deleted; the name of the centenarians list be changed to List of Notable Centenarians; and that Weule's Chronicle obit (which is the source of her current Wiki article) be linked to the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake article, where there is also a link to one Herbert Hamrol (Herbert Hamrol, 104, one of the last survivors of 1906 earthquake). Eye.earth (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable rap group. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On your page it states that you are an inclusionist, yet you have marked this page for deletion. Please explain. Also, I apologize if this is the improper channel to do this through. Please bear with me as I learn.Boychik (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whole thing nothing but unsourced speculation. Only source provided doesn't sound particularly authoritative and gives next to no information on it. Even if it's real it's not notable as far as I can tell. I had prodded it, but an anon user removed the prod with the edit comment "life experience is a source", which is, of course, a major violation of WP:RS, WP:OR and a zillion other policies. DreamGuy (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete on the balance of the arguments. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Season article about a football club that was playing below a fully professional level at the time and therefore fails the notability guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted 1/ negative or dispagaring page, poor sources, for a possibly living person, 2/ Article about a person with no evidence of importance/significance, 3/ Probable IAR deletion as well, on the basis that it is so poorly written that "delete and rewrite if notable" would be a viable decision. Summary deletion per above and possibly per WP:BLP, noting the WP:SNOW-tending views to date below. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serious WP:RS and (since we have no reliable source for his death) probable WP:BLP problems as well.
Earlier versions contained a variety of sensational and/or fantastical assertions involving sex offences, the Illuminati, mental illness, etc, all entirely without reliable source backup, in direct contravention of WP:BLP. See the talk page for mention of this, and its removal.
Given the apparent lack of conventional reliable sources for what remains of this article (Cornerstone probably does not qualify as one), it should probably be removed entirely per WP:V. The Anome (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax article. Although BSkyB are planning a download service, there has no name been given for the service, only Universal Music has signed up to anything and there is little detail about the service in any of the sources I have seen on Google News. It might be fine for a paragraph in the British Sky Broadcasting article for now, but most of the information is false, the title of the article is made up and some unsourced information in the article is false and untrue speculation, particularly information about Diva TV's involvement where I could find no information about their involvement on Google. --tgheretford (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Akinbola is a famous troll around here. He copies and pastes other people's posts and uses them as his own and comes with up with bizarre ideas for TV channels and companies, he gets banned and re-surfaces a month later. I've noticed him recently trolling the Challenge TV forums requesting to get ITV chart show on Challenge TV!!
Have you seen Wikipedia recently? He's invented a new Digital TV platform called "Box New Channels" (Wikipedia have since deleted that article, rather unfortunatly), and a new music download/tv channel called "Four-pack Music Sky Broadcasting". And don't forget his claims that 4Music is going to be opened by Eminem covering "Black or White".
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD as NN (no assertion of notability), with no RS available. Prod was removed without explanation. Group website shows five chapters (two in NJ, one in RI, one in FL, one in Italy) since 1942. Google shows Wikipedia as second hit, group itself as first, different group as third, local chapter as fourth and every hit after is irrelevant. MSJapan (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), Bold NAC. This is a completely different article than what we started with. While I strongly and strenuously disagree with the practice of remaking the subject of an article during an AfD, the process of deletion isn't punitive and isn't hidebound. The new article is wholly different and any deletion discussions of it are not germane to this (and vice versa). Protonk (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of plot and setting information culled from various other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is thus duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
While I am not going to argue one way or the other here about its notability in Warhammer, it is most definitely a serious and legitimate topic covered in scholarly sources about an aspect of modernist British gothic literature. Anyway, I believe that this is the approach to take here. So, if there is a consensus against the Warhammer stuff, I doubt anyone could reasonably argue against the subject as it relates to Gothic literature, so let us not be stopped by the AfD from beginning work on the article on Gothic literature in the Abhuman space and if there is consensus for the Warhammer content, that can always be moved to a new article called Abhuman (Warhammer), but clearly the use in Gothic literature is the one that gets the most reliable secondary source coverage and should be what is the focus of Abhuman. I have started working on that content, but would appreciate help and hopefully we can succeed as we did with Arathi and Commander Dante. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Regarding whether a redirect should be created that points to hyperspace (science fiction), there doesn't appear to be a consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such it is simply plot repetition done in an in-universe way culled from the other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable unit from Indonesian Air Force. One of only two references is from a non-RS site (per article's own talk page). If all that can be said about this unit is the same two sentences repeated on specialoperations.com, it fails WP:N and should be deleted. Declined CSD and prod removed immediately for incorrect reason: "Prod declined. Not elegible for Prod b/c already sent to CSD and CSD was declined. If you feel it is not notable, send to AfD. However, don't practice Americanisms: if this were a U.S. unit it stay?" (and to answer the question asked by removing PRODed, I don't care where the unit is from, it is still unnotable) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - OK, this unit is an Indonesian Special Forces, Counter-terrorist force. By its very nature, it of note. It is in the top tier Indonesian Military ORBAT. If it was from the USA or Europe, no one would be flagging it up. This highlights the problem of editors who do not maintain a NPOV and do not look at subjects on an international basis. It must be Kept (Archangel1 (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
The result was No consensus - arguments both ways are strong; while it appears to be on the edge of deletion due to notability, the sources presented do seem to indicate there are references available. Hopefully, those sources will improve the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a forthcoming film. No release date, nothing on IMDb. PROD removed by author when he added a link to a trailer on the film's web-site, but I don't think a two-and-a-half minute trailer is evidence that the film has commenced principal photography as required by WP:NFF. I can find no independent reliable source - Google search finds discussion on blogs and film sites, all seeming to use the same words: "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs. It seems to take some of the concepts of Philip K Dick and P D James. The trailer has some really interesting images... " - sounds like a press release. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: It does seem to be demonstrated that the film exists, but (I'm sorry if I seem to be moving the goalposts) there is still the question of notability as defined in WP:MOVIE, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The Moving Picture Institute are not independent - they funded the film and in fact the article says they "produced" it. Everything else I can find on the web is blog-type discussion and speculation, so many of them using the same words starting "The trailer has been creating a lot of buzz on many film blogs... " which I quoted above, that one suspects a common origin. Read the sections of WP:MOVIE headed General principles and Future films, incomplete films, and undistributed films: I just don't think this unreleased short film qualifies as notable. However since more information has been added since the nomination, I have notified everyone who has !voted so far, so that they can revisit it if they wish. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article was reduced to a stub in April, apparently due to an OTRS complaint (see the article talk page). Nobody seems to have been interested in rewriting the article since then. In the state it is currently in, it does not assert or establish notability, and also lacks reliable sources. Sandstein 15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, since the article has now been sourced to the point where notability is clearly established. Thanks, David! Sandstein 22:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is original research and has no references. I am also listing Sport utility wagon as a related article. See also related AfDs: Sport utility coupe, Sport utility coupe (2nd nomination), and Sport utility convertible. swaq 15:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical Article with NO sources. Has not been improved upon in almost a month. Washburnmav (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by consent of author. Friday (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. I don't see much evidence that this is an established term. One paper has been cited, but if that's all there is, I don't think we should have an article on this. Consider merging some content where appropriate to rumor or some other appropriate place. But, right now, the existence of this article looks to me like an attempt to help establish this term and concept. Wikipedia is only for concepts which are already established. I'm willing to be convinced by more sources, but so far it appears to be just the one that talks of "rumor bomb" as a new concept. Friday (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Probable hoax as there is no evidence from reliable sources exist. Most of the keeps centre around the reasoning of the nominator, however there are many valid reasons to delete this article. -Djsasso (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written, completely unsourced article. Has not been improved upon in almost a month. Washburnmav (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Sol-Angel and the Hadley St. Dreams. PhilKnight (talk) 12:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources, dubious material. Washburnmav (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Wizardman 00:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable article. List of relatively unimportant information
Washburnmav (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Wholly unsourced -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was delete, discounting the last "keep" comment. Sandstein 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. Written in a completely "in universe" style and contains content that is not even relevant to the game as it is played. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
The result was no consensus with a recommendation that interested editors consider starting a merge discussion. Contributors could not agree on whether the available (or potential) sources were adequate to satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability policies. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actress. Google search lists social networking as top finds, and one hit on anime.com for voicework. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 14:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nom withdrawn. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reincarnation of previously deleted article, failed AfD as a non-notable neologism. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good job to those who provided material support for this article. I rescind my nomination and recommend a speedy keep. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 03:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep.Had to go close the window with the weather out there. Wizardman 16:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged non notable since Oct 2007. Does not meet WP:BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst "Duology" does seem to be used by some people to describe a cycle of two films or novels, it is not a dictionary defined word. It does not fit into the pattern for trilogy, tetralogy, etc which are made from greek words (whereas this is a hybrid of Latin and Greek). Also, after trying to give the word the benefit of the doubt and having made edits the list to remove things which could not be considered to have been conceived as a "duology" (in the same way that a trilogy might), it became apparent that this page was here just to list series of two films or books, and included some unsuitable entries (Ghostbusters 1 & 2; The Iliad and the Odyssey). It also became more and more apparent that hardly anything would qualify as a "duology", unless, perhaps, the author had conceived it to be thought of as "The something Duology" (like the tetralogy "The Alien Quadrilogy" has been described in marketing materials). I am yet to see an example of "Duology" to be used in this way. Robsinden (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Second place in a pageant for six-year-olds is not a sufficient assertion of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOTABLE. Simeon (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted by Toddst1 (CSD A7). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:WEB. Could be merged somewhere. Burningjoker (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slim notability claim, based on award not properly referenced. NB strong suspicion article creator has COI. Dweller (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreated shortly after a unanimous deletion discussion, by a new user. Still fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - the article relies on the organization's own homepage or doesn't cite references at all; no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources is given: the cited CNN page contains merely a trivial mention of United Planet without any additional information, not a "feature" of the organization as the description suggests. "Hard facts" such as the funding sources or the size of the budget are still missing. HaeB (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio of this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this when looking through Special:NewPages; its history shows that it has been ((db-g1))
ed before; I thought it would be best to bring this to the attention of others now that this is a second request. The article reads like an essay of sorts, except that I cannot really follow or understand it; it seems like some sort of Islamic POV push, at any rate. No references, badly written, unenyclopaedic (at time of proposal, anyway) - please delete. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delëtè. Sandstein 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable fan-made literature, based on the languages invented by Tolkien. The only place these texts appear are either on the web or in a few Tolkien related magazines. Not notable, hasn't received any attention outside this circle. Fram (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), retracted by nominator. Multiple sources exist, other problems can be solved by editing the page. Wronkiew (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a mirror of the CBMW website (WP:NOTMIRROR). Also, not notable. Wronkiew (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly changed to redirect to correct title. I'll drop a note at the other AfD discussion asking the closing admin to take a gander here for more arguments. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book; satisfies none of the criteria of WP:NB Smeazel (talk) 08:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Article contents are unverifiable. Prod removed with the addition of sources, but none of them are about the clan Steverson. As I said on the article talk page: the article lumps all people with a name resembling Steverson together, and claims that they all belong to a clan. Where is the evidence for that? There are 12 distinct Google hits for Clan Steverson outside Wikipedia[25]. There are no reliable sources that mention Clan Steverson (no books[26], articles[27], newspapers,[28] ... looking for "Steverson clan" gives even less results). The sources used; Nationmaster is a copy of Wikipedia (see the bottom of that page); the second source lists a whole bunch of names related to the border wars: anything resembling Steverson is clearly absent though; the third source discusses Adlai Stevenson, but does not mention Scotland, clans, or Steverson. There is no evidence of a clan Steverson to which all these people belong. There is some evidence of a clan Stevenson, which Robert Louis Stevenson tried to establish / fabricate, but that is a different thing and would better be rewritten from scratch (and with good sources). Fram (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suspected hoax. Zero Google hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted A7 as a NN-Band Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not meet the criteria listed at WP:MUSIC. Prod removed without comment. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep; article cleaned up really nicely. Disclaimer: Closer had suggested deletion. — Coren (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My G12 speedy delete was declined, but I still believe this is a blatant copyright infringement. So, I'll hand it off to you guys. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 06:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawing nomination now that it has been cleaned up. Anyone want to perform a close? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various issues, primarily no external sources or compliance with WP:CORP. Prod contested with no valid rationale, only an extremely un-wikipedian assertion that the prodder should "just ask a welder" and stick to his own "scope of knowledge". The opinions of welders are not, AFAIK, preferred to Wikipedia policies when judging notability. Deiz talk 06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination: No mention of notability, and I suspect there is none at this point enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Additionally, the article is largely composed of speculative opinion that I doubt can be attributed. I'm not even sure if the opinions of this Zaitsev is a mainstream one worthy of mention, eg. Google turns up only message boards and blogs (other than his paper, Wikipedia and its mirrors) none of which seem to meet the criteria for a reliable source or expert opinion. ~ Jafet Speaker of many words 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest to your notice an article: SETI’s Paradox and the Great Silence (with 52 comments) —Preceding unsigned comment added by METIfan (talk • contribs) 08:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete and protect against recreation by Jimfbleak per WP:CSD#G3 (vandalism). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No results for this in search; WP:MADEUP. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete patent nonsense not even worthy of the name bio. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverified, unassertive, random information regarding a non-notable individual. Creator avoided speedy deletion by blanking page. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 05:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete as copyright violation. Kevin (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Text is WP:COPYVIO from 1. In addition, Eufaula Lake already has text about the Standing Rock. Propose merge into Eufaula Lake and deletion of copyrighted material. (As an aside, I did change this to a redirect, but the original author changed it back.) Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 22:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTAL. Won't be built until 2013, and that's assuming that it will be built. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, in the years it has been on Wikipedia, asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is only notable in relation to the two articles on the characters two appearances. It is an in-universe repetition of plot points from the X files episode articles, and is totally duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete & salt. Rjd0060 (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't seem to meet notability guideliens. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube-based "filmmakers"; outside of search results either on YouTube or pointing to it, there is no mention of this group. Fails WP:NOTE Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable under WP:PROF, and anyway, the article is really a Coatrack for a book that is not notable under WP:BK. Nearly the same text was added to existence of God, philosophy of religion, natural theology, and presuppositional apologetics, which seems a bit like POV pushing, not to mention that it asserts God's existence has been definitively proven. Also, it's a possible copyvio. Flex (talk/contribs) 04:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Wizardman 22:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Each of these is a series of individual "mix" albums from a series called "Back to Mine." A google news search pulls up all of twelve possible hits for the entire series, mostly announcement type things. The series itself is barely notable, much less all of the albums in it. They have no extensive coverage in reliable sources and all of the articles are little more than a note of the artist, release date, and the tracklistings.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the above stated reasons:
-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a fairly obvious hoax. Filming 58 episodes in December? Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable blogger who has a podcast; no published works and not well known within his field. Article provides little or no relevant biographical information and contains no real encyclopaedic content, nor any reasonable assertion of notability. IngeniousCritic (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect' to Korobeiniki. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, it's ... a song. Corvus cornixtalk 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bond's Album has placed 1st place in 21 different charts. Is that nonotable? This is also not an adaptaion of that song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta Op Alpha 1 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse me. The name of the song is Korobushka. The bond version is slightly more that a little differnet than the original though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta Op Alpha 1 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn Having a chart hit asserts notability quite nicely. Of course, it would've helped had I known that the Italian music charts really are called the Italian Charts. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sources. Claims to be famous but I'm not finding anything about him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet criteria for a music article, band has no notable members and are on unnotable label. Their biggest claim to fame seems to be the fact that one of their songs was once played on a BBC radio station. Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet criteria for a music article, band has no notable members and are unsigned Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent promotional article on a non-notable musician. All releases seem to have been done on a self-publishing label, and I can't find any evidence that they have been on the (specialized Tunecore) Billboard charts as they claim. The lack of overt promotional content and claim to have charted on Billboard prevented me from speedily deleting it under WP:CSD#A7 or WP:CSD#G11, so I'm bringing it here for discussion instead. jonny-mt 03:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i think i'll start here. thanks to those who helped this article out, as far as the references that it now has. i don't know. I heard half of this song by the guy from Day26, Que on sirius radio in the car two weeks ago and actually thought Que had come out with his own album? couldn't find Que's CD at walmart yet, thanks to the chorus, managed to locate the song on iTunes, but didn't buy it cause i wanted the genuine cd to play in the car. now, Day26 was on MTV's "Making The Band 4" earlier this year, but even more last year. i ended up hunting the song down on CD and bought it last week via paypal from a chick on discogs.com by the way, Que's song "Cry No More" has a bunch of remixes up on YouTube too with about 7,500 page views in total. then, when i got around to listening to the rest of the CD while driving... i realized he had two other artists on here that have been a little quiet for a few months:
1) NYCKZ... who has an accumulated total of over ONE MILLION page views on youtube.com, all spread out over 2 dozen videos or so. he's also on the Beef 4 DVD alongside Paul Wall, NYCKZ has a song on this CD too.
2) Arab... who i think has recorded songs with souljaboytellem, most notably the video on MTV and BET last year, "Pass It To Arab".
now that i think about it, i understand why its ramadichi dollars AND friends or why its not on all music guide, you got 3 different people on 3 different career paths who are all in the public eye on the same CD and produced by the same guy, who needs all music guide or a publicist when you got friends like this. ramadichi whoever he is has some, pretty VISIBLE friends. they were all over FM Radio, international television networks and the internet, last year and this year. noteworthy or "notable"... maybe not, but definitely visible. i was surprised when i referenced "ramadichi dollars" on wikipedia and didn't see anything... but i guess that's why everything this guy wanted to say was in the linear notes of this second-hand, used CD i bought online. i was just trying to do the best i could. sorry i didn't understand all the referencing hypertext stuff.
if you want to delete it. FINE, but i think it belongs right where it is. if more people could help with the referencing or if someone else out there has this CD too. Maybe they could make the article better or something. so that wikipedia can continue to be the best free encyclopedia in existence.
hope i didn't offend anybody, didn't mean to. first time here, and i think this place is still pretty cool. ramadichi or no ramadichi. - Kevin J. Powell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin J Powell (talk • contribs) 06:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --JForget 22:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books shows only one ghit [45], no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR issues burden this essay. The wobbly writing style doesn't help, the lack of references is fatal. Pending a full rewrite, I am not certain that it belongs here. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me-owww! Appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is of non-notable individual, and created by username nearly identical to that of the subject of the article in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and specifically WP:Autobiography. Volunteerism does not assert notability, nor does entry, placement of winning of a contest. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 02:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article may be a hoax - a Google search for "Rock Williams" and "KFWR" only turns up this article. The charges of sexual harrassment cited in the article are also not confirmed in an online search.WP:RS and WP:V, to put it mildly. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. GlassCobra 17:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge/redirect to Ministry of Defence Police#Special capabilities. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable unit of a police force, contents already included verbatim in Ministry of Defence Police. ninety:one 14:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Wizardman 00:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No facts, dates, references, images - in fact nothing of any use
The result was withdrawn by nominator (Non-admin closure). Protonk's cleanup got the job done. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Title aside, this article does not comprise a distinct subject in the field of economics. "Production" belongs in Manufacturing, and the other concepts in microeconomics and managerial economics (pricing already has its own article). It's just an unsourced amalgamation of topics (not even mergeable content) that are somehow related to production theory. FrankTobia (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (non-admin closure) Leonard(Bloom) 23:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Film reporter and reviewer; he does work for a cable network, but I haven't found any articles on him per WP:BIO. Nearly all of his biography is pulled directly from Startv violating WP:COPYVIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respected Editors. I don't know what wrong with the review table of this article. If you see the articles of other Critics, you can clearly see given points and their official comments for number of films. I removed all the controversial comments and points raised by all. But now I don't think so that the unsortable review has a problem. If someone is raising any violation point, it isn't true. Because ultimately the website hosting this articles is been ultimate beneficiary. If some tell me any valid arguments on this point, I will never update this list again.
The result was Withdrawn I noticed the NSAI awards before, but I wasn't sure if they're notable enough; apparently they are. Between that and the lawsuit regarding "Prop Me Up", I'm now barely convinced that he meets notability guidelines. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was kept last time depsite a total lack of sources; closing admin noted "keep. a lack of references does not require deletion: it requires references. I'm inclined to err toward inclusion." Well, there are no references besides one Wikipedia page and an article which has a mere mention of one song that he co-wrote for Joe Diffie. Therefore, I feel he fails WP:N and WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been around for two years and neither gives references nor establishes notability. It is basically a list of a firm's clients, only four of them having an English WP entry. The corresponding Japanese article - as far as I can tell - seems to be an even longer list with little more information. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historical essay. Unsourced and POV. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 00:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article for song that has no reliable sources to show it is going to be a single, therefore failing WP:MUSIC#Songs Aspects (talk) 01:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw-nomination
Reason Mattcontinental (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The article is listed as an aircraft accident. The actual flight did not experience an accident.
2. Numerous contradicting information between the four aircraft involved in the 9-11 attacks.
Mattcontinental (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Deleted as A3 - no meaningful content. SkierRMH (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reason Vrefron (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No context, entry doesn't explain how it's related to title, honestly it's hard to explain why I AfD' it, except for I see no valid reason for this page existing.
The result was Delete, cloudy with a chance of SNOW. TravellingCari 18:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Future album with no concrete release date, (mostly) poorly sourced content and rumours galore. Fails WP:V, Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Proposing deletion without prejudice if/when further official information becomes available. Anything useful can easily be merged into main artist article. It's too soon for this one. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Essay without the potential to become a genuine encyclopedic article. The article has existed without significant change for a long time. It is not a significant area of Heidegger research, and seems to be a personal essay by one user, originally cut out of the Heidegger article where it did not belong. However, it really doesn't belong anywhere. Merge would not be appropriate. BCST2001 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musician. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. The reds have been mostly blued. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unneeded disambiguation page as there is currently no articles of this name. This was originally prodded but was removed with a message saying that the Knox County Courthouse is notable. I am not here arguing whether these courthouses are notable, but that if there are no Wikipedia articles for a certain disambiguation, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Disambiguations are not lists as there already is a list which documents these courthouses. Note: This can always be recreated if there is a need for it in the future, but right now its not needed. Tavix (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knox County Courthouse, Knoxville, Tennessee already existed. Just needed a re-direct. These exist and can be created. Seems to be a case of fix it. TravellingCari 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and convert into a protected redirect to Kellie Pickler until the album's release date. Blueboy96 14:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not again. This keeps getting re-created without any sources at all. There are no reliable sources yet to verify the tracklist or anything else. This creation has a little more, so G4 doesn't apply. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawal of nomination, keep. Evidence of significant coverage in Atlanta newspaper, although it is a pay site and I am unable to access article for reference.. Tan ǀ 39 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet any notability criteria of WP:BK. No sources, looks like WP:OR. Tan ǀ 39 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep issues raised as basis for deletion were addressed. Gnangarra 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet any criteria of WP:BK. Redlinked author. No sources, looks like WP:OR. Tan ǀ 39 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully submit that all the above is a quite reasonable justification to keep this page on, completely consistent with the guidelines set out in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anne McDermott (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is discussed in detail in The World Hilter Never Made, a scholarly and comprehensive book on the specific subject (Nazi Victory Alternate History) whose sources are indeed independent of the book itself and which definitely serves a general audience. There are references to the place Rutman's book has in this overall sub-genre and comparison of it to other books - which seems to bear out the arguments set out by Anne McDermott. (Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, the writer of "The World Hilter Never Made", also communicated with Rutman by email to ask his opinion on some points, as is quoted in footnote 154)[58]. By the way, I would like to congratulate Anne McDermott on joining Wikipedia in general and the Alternate History aspect of Wikipedia in particular. It is a pity you had to get into such a rough struggle so early on in your Wikipedia career - sometimes you must jump in at the deep end. But the rewards for persisting are many. Good Luck and welcome! Andreas Kaganov (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to add that Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, Ph.D is not only the writer of the above-mentioned book but a also a lecturer in (actual) history at the University of California, Los Angeles (Dep. of History & Program of Judaic Studies) [60]. He also referenced "Clash of Eagles" in an article entitled "Why Do We Ask 'What If?' Reflections on the Function of Alternate History" published in "History and Theory", a publication of Wesleyan University devoted to Studies in the Philosophy of History (Vol. 41, No. 4, Theme Issue 41: Unconventional History (Dec., 2002), pp. 90-103)[61] [62]. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the above I found a reference to this book in the 2007 essay ""The Third Reich and Allohistorical Normalization" by Joe Cole [63]. There is also a reference to "Clash of Eagles" in an article in Hungarian [64]. And I would like to add, the numerous entries you get in Google for "Leo Rutman" + "Clash of Eagles", even if they are not enough in themselves to establish notability, should also be taken into consideration. Adam Keller 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Blueboy96 14:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unneeded disambiguation as the disambiguation doesn't direct anywhere. This was originally prodded but was removed by the author of the disambiguation. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was snowballed delete. Probable scam and SPA violations. Account will be blocked as well, and a notice posted at WP:AN. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nom withdrawn, see here. TravellingCari 19:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims notability, but can't find any intellectually independent sources (at least in English). Article is a disaster; discovered the lack of sources while attempting to clean it up. YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 14:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]