The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO and appears to work for a non notable promotion that has already been removed as not notable. Could be a vanity article. Also created by a user with a history of inappropriate articles !! Justa Punk !! 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Merge to quantum mysticism or some-like article. I'm just redirecting it with the history preserved; that's not an invitation to restore the content, it's an invitation to merge. --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per discussion at Talk:Consciousness causes collapse#Questions about the phrase "consciousness causes collapse" the editors are generally in agreement that this particular topic probably does not deserve a separate article but can be woven into a sub-section of Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics, for example. It was suggested that we AfD this article to get greater input from the community. I believe that deleting the article for notability and even perhaps naming concerns might be appropriate (it isn't clear that this particular phrase is used all that much as an interpretation of QM outside of Wikipedia). ScienceApologist (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Folks making a case to keep this article need to explain (a) why it's been crap since it's creation in 2004, and (b) tell us what on earth is going to be different in the future to cause that to change. From what I have seen at the talk page, a better article title would be "Condescension causes collapse" (of the Wiki-function). WNDL42 (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been deleted, this was a valuable recourse documenting UK sound systems. There were literally thousands of people involved in setting up all these organisations and to delete this list is burying a little bit of of UK culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.101.48 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know this was nominated before, but this is nothing but a list of unlinked sound systems. If there were articles about each and every one of these things, or even most of them, then this might be useful. But there aren't even sources for this huge list of apparently non-notable sound systems. If these systems were notable, there would be articles about them. Corvus cornixtalk 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the kind of stuff you cannot get documented anywhere else. By its very nature rave is an underground culture. People are not open about these things, because, partly it is linked in with illegal sales of drugs like Ecstacy. Partly its people who want a little world of their world to NOT be of the rat race and the survailance society. You are not going to get citations and good references. Rave culture is on the ragged edge of society, but important culturally. You would not have got good references in the 1950's for the beat culture. Or in the 1960's for Bob Dylan and co before they went mainstream.
Deleteing this would make wiki look like an "old bunch of authoritarian fuddy duddies" club on the internet. What next ? Articles on how dangerous E is while totally ignoring the hard statistics on the drug ? This is what politicians do now. Will wiki be removing the sentences where Jack Kerouac is identified as an amphetamine abuser ? Denying the romantic poets took opium ?
If you delete this "free party sounds" list then Wiki might as well just talk about set theory (done and dusted by Leonhard Euler some 300 years ago) and politically correct versions of non-contraversional history. If wiki can't cope with this slightly ragged edge of society it just becomes a nice squeaky clean university club on the internet.
Maybe my concept of wiki was incorrect. Maybe thinking it was a pool of knowledge that grows and grows, and that anyone can contribute was wrong. Maybe for admin status soon you will need a recognised PhD in the subject area you police. I think wiki is becoming too zealously policed. And deleteing this is would be a good example of it.
Robin48gx (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You already have the beginings of rave culture, literature irving welsh, films [[3]], a whole massive subset of contemporary music, and you want to delete evidence of the technical engine that drives this sub-culture ?????? Even in the mainstream comedy TV shows like PEEP SHOW we have in depth fictional forays into rave culture, but wiki is going to somehow put its head in the sand ???Robin48gx (talk) 11:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Traces_series#Framed.21. Replacing article content with redirect as to keep article's history intact. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet WP:BK, tagged since Nov. 2007. Seems to have been merged already into Traces_series#Framed.21. Lea (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Non-admin closure --Soxred93 | talk count bot 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable YouTube series. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 22:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
another of them non-notable junior schools. Montchav (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is some coverage, but it's all local and nothing showing any notability. As it's private, no larger entity to merge to. Travellingcari (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN school. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that this carpet brand/style/kind is notable, no sources showing significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local bands, even from such a nice place as Central Florida, are usually not notable and a directory of these bands is of no encyclopedic value; WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not going to fight this one, I've got aother article I'm trying to save. I don't agree that local notability is not notable enough. I didn't have time to complete the list anyways. Saksjn (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actress article sourced to her own webpage, no indication that she has received significant coverage in reliable third party sources as required by WP:N, WP:BIO. So nn that we don't know when or where she was born or anything about her other than her claimed appearances (as bit parts, non-speaking/singing roles?) in some movies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created by myself some time ago, this is not maintained anymore. The reason: it is an unneeded list, nearly all athletes are bluelinked, being African is not a particularly relevant or interesting characteristic by which to bring these items together, we already have categories for this. Punkmorten (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upcoming debut album, violates both WP:N & WP:CRYSTAL Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Spondyo (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources are mostly the radio stations own website, no reasonable assertion of notability Beeblbrox (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject seems notable enough for inclusion, particularly as the show was broadcast during the station's award winning year. The article is referenced, is of a sufficient length and follows the Manual of Style. It must be noted that the editor proposing this article for deletion has little or no other contributions, so his nomination must be treated with caution. Bob talk 13:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Bob. Paste (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure on what grounds since I can't find anything specific to academic degrees. I know schools are considered notable by consensus, I cannot find anything notable about this degree as compared with any other academic degree. Note there's been some discussion that stemmed from tag removal. Travellingcari (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This is a well written and interesting article. However, in order for the page to survive it needs to meet WP:N which leads that the subject should have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article is entirely devoid of secondary sources, none have been produced in an 18 day AfD and there was unanimity amongst the AfD contributors that it should be deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an apparently non-notable publication. No evidence of notability, and only references are to its own Myspace. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed without explanation. Non-notable character from I Dream of Jeannie. Article is just a synopsis of the character with no secondary source coverage. Fails WP:FICTION. Redfarmer (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE - it should be noted that while this discussion is going on, the original author has created two more identical articles, Dr. Alfred Bellows and Dr Alfred Bellows (both of which I have turned into redirects. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete and redirect to Boston Red Sox all-time roster. Players for Boston Red Sox are notable by definition and no case has been made for a subsidiary, more refined, list. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm a Red Sox fan, but I don't understand the point of this article at all. It is simply a list of notable baseball players who have played for the Boston Red Sox, as it describes. I say just delete it, because it's redundant to Boston Red Sox all-time roster. jj137 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable self published book. References are misleading, and all references are to unreliable self published sources. As far as I can the majority of this article is made up non-sense. Ridernyc (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against deleting it but the fact is that this book exists and I have seen it being debated since mid 90s. None of it is "non-sense". If you google "hexagradior" you get over 1000 results. It is mentioned in at least one book (Ardeth - The Made Vampire) and that was published prior to "Hexagradior Bible Of Magic" where (to my knowledge) the Hexagradior text itself was first made public as one chapter of the book. So much for non-notable. One book and over thousand web pages refered to it (agreed, some of it are usernames, but it still disproves the "non-notable" theory). All before it appeared on Amazon.
"references misleading" ??? - one reference is the Wikipedia article itself LOL It references Egyptian Soul beliefs and "Ka" symbol which does look exactly like one exercise from the book. That is undeniable. Rosemary Clark in "The Sacred Magic of Ancient Egypt" has sacred gestures and magic practices from Ancient Egypt one of which is that exact one resembling the "Ka" symbol. Rosicrucian Monographs also describe same exercise. That exercise exists at least since 19th century. All facts, no "made up non-sense". When the word "hexagradior" started being associated with that exercise + the others is another matter. And that is the problem I don't have answer to.
By now all pages from 90s where name "hexagradior" was discussed are gone or updated with newer dates and I can't find any earlier references to it. As explained it probably stems from early 20th century Europe and references from that time are hard to find because people had bigger problems like two world wars to think and write about. All in all, I'd have to agree not much can be verified and on that grounds I agree that it can be removed.
Then again same "unverifiable" goes for most of stuff from the Wikipedia grimoires list. Noone knows when exactly which grimoire was made. The only difference is that they are older which gave more time to more books to reference them. I guess let's leave it to someone in 50 years time or so to make this entry again. MrMagneto (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hmmm. There's a self-published book by this title with Amazon sales rank of #1,111,589. The references seem to consist of a website and a post in a forum. I think that the book is non-notable and that the article does not have any reliable sources. Cardamon (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said. Can't be verified and I agree with deletion on that grounds. I am saying that your other arguments don't stand. Newsgroup search ??? Are you even into occult? I just searched for "Le Grand Albert" and "La clef de la magie noire". Albert returns a bunch of people named Albert all "...of which have nothing to do with the book at all..." and one saint of that name. Second book gives 0 results. "... So in the past 27 years no one mentioned ... " two books one on which has centuries of reputation in France and Channel Islands and is mentioned in a number of books, and the other book is where pentagram with goat first appeared (19th century) and still has no mentions of it in "past 27 years" in news groups. "Key of solomon" (present since 1500s) gets 1 result and even that is for "Songs in the Key of Solomon" and that has nothing to do with the grimoire. "...So in the past 27 years no one mentioned..." The Key of Solomon. One of most famous, if not the most famous of all grimoires? Not "...even once, kind of strange...." Amazon sales rank? I look at http://www.amazon.com/Aradia-Gospel-Witches-Charles-Leland/dp/1585092428/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202978771&sr=8-5 (Aradia) and I see sales rank #1,541,394 (lower than what Cardamon found) Is that grounds for removing Aradia now? Of all arguments, only the one about verifiability stands. No firm references can be found. We agree on deletion on the grounds of "no firm references", just not on other arguments around it, so let's just delete the damn book because we can go on like this for days. MrMagneto (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I said Key of Solomon is famous. Not Hexagradior. We all agree that the references are not firm enough to make it "famous". What I am saying is that the problem with Hexagradior is lack of references which makes anything anyone writes about it unverifiable. I am simply not agreeing that it is "non-sense" and that "non-notable" is measured by Amazon rank, that's all. MrMagneto (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK this is an odd one. I can find scant evidence that this company exists: John Wilkes & Co. which sent me looking for other variations. John Wilkes Gun & Rifle Makers had a similar lack of results but turned up a directory listing (ignore the unrelaiability of Tripod for a moment) that provided the company had a website except it doesn't. Similar google searches didn't help. I found this, which asserts: The firm of John Wilkes, still in business and still operated by the Wilkes family, has built both shotguns and rifles for other makers. but I can't find evidence of this at all, other than directory listings. Oh and "John Wilkes" rifle is fairly useless due to a certain assassin with that name. So on that ground, I'm nominating this for deletion. I can't see it ever being more than a sentence without extra info. Travellingcari (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article was blanked by an editor claiming that this person doesn't exist and the article is a hoax. Since it is unsourced, and a quick google search finds only WP & mirrors, this may be true. Unless some sourcing can be found, this ought to be deleted and WP has been hoaxed again due to our lax policies of not requiring sources on all (supposed) BLPs at the bare minimum... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was speedied as advertising. Howeevr, the author said that the company is notable in Argentina. Therefore I am putting it here in order to generatea consensus and to give the author some time to improve the article. No opinion from my side. Tone 20:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Article currently holds next to no claim of notability; probably strongest claim is climbing Kilimanjaro, which isn't very notable. I considered speedying before prodding, in the hope it would be improved. It seems from the talk page that the article creator is confident others can improve it, but seems reluctant to do so themselves, so here we are. Dweller (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article could be improved with these RS notability assertions, it'd be wonderful. --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - jc37 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was speedied by me as A7, another admin restored it contending that this one-liner asserted notability. She's so nn we don't know where or when she was born, what work she has done, what coloring she has credits for, how precisely she has worked in the biz and where are the reliable sources showing significant coverage as we require for WP:BIO and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very POV article; if she is so accomplished, surely there ought to be more hard facts about her. Deb (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete since none of the keep proponents actually gave a reason to do so. Fram (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a genealogical repository). Also unprecedented, we are much more likely to include a person's ancestry rather than their descendants on Wikipedia. Also violates WP:OR and is not properly sourced ("various" being a word used). The article is not an encyclopedic topic and many of the descendants are not notable (in fact, most of them are not). If the fact that the King has descendants is notable then it belongs in his article but we don't list descendants here in Wikipedia as in this article.Charles 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete As the article 'Gustav II Adolf' is currently named 'Gustavus Adolphus'. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced. Failed to establish notability. Just a growing stream of advertisements for game websites. Spam. Recommend this is deleted. Maybe add a brief mention in Reality television or Online games. Anitpatel (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Substub; fails WP:FICT WP:PRODUCT. Lea (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, fails notability for songs per WP:MUSIC Black Kite 00:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable promotional single (free download/given away at shows). Fails WP:MUSIC. Can't redirect to the album because the album doesn't exist (yet). —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete, issues with Google's cache should be reported to them directly, not by making pages on Wikipedia. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recreation of previously AFDed page, still no claims of notability that stand up Blowdart | talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Mr Kleiman is back pushing his own site, with the obvious conflict of interest and no changes to the article which was deleted last time, except this time there's some excuse hinting at libel because google cached the old talk page. Setting aside the legal threat as no changes have been made, the notability references are about the old site it was spun off fun and the page being exactly the same as last time the AFD should be a no-brainer. --Blowdart | talk 18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CORP. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence that it passes WP:CORP and ghits are trivial (even after correcting for the article misspelling the company's name. Travellingcari (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:N, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#NEWS. MrStalker (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copyvio of something, I just can't G12 it because I can't find the source to prove it. Either way, lovely man I'm sure but he appears to fail WP:BIO quite impressively. Travellingcari (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: I found one of his books after a number of false positives but due to age, I can't find reviews or anything. Travellingcari (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per CSD:R3, it is on the Shrieker dab page, which redirects to the Graboid article where far more information about the creature already exists. Black Kite 09:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tremors cruft. Probably does not merit its own article. If kept, the animal infobox definitely needs to go — I doubt that's appropriate for fictional creatures — and the article needs a name change, but I'm sure this will wind up deleted anyway. tgies (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep, nominator withdrawn with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reason nn person article fails wp:bio plus article is unsourced admin or someone please close this i withdraw this afdOo7565 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. krimpet✽ 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personal essay full of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Prod tag removed by author, whose website is the source of most content. Recommend Delete unless 3rd-party reliable sources can be found in which this concept is discussed. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both per lack of WP:V and WP:RS. Subject to re-creation when evidence proves they even exist. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced/ nonverifiable texts about supposed highly secretive (yeah, sure) Russian spec ops by alleged former kgbist, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strelok `'Míkka>t 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Information about upcoming projects, belongs in the parent article until reliable sources exist for the specific product. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete: NN minor conlang — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs)
Completely fails WP:FICT and WP:V. Google returns only 16 hits, all unrelated. Likely made-up. Doctorfluffy (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE. notability not established. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. Lea (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. I'm treating this as an expired WP:PROD, since prod was never tried on this article, and no one has commented or objected to the deletion. Mangojuicetalk 15:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet notability requirements, in particular no published album, no non-trivial media coverage. Lea (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Teen co-author of play that won local play-writing context. Poems allegedly published in bird magazine. Does this stretch WP:NOTE past the breaking point? (note: creator and main contributor appear to be co-author of play.) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is borderline spam and judging from the username of the creator, there's a strong suspicion of conflict of interest. Assertions about the importance and popularity of the blog are unreferenced and while the blog may or may not be notable enough for inclusion, the article in its current state is unacceptable. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article appears to exist solely to promote Redmond Burke, Teges Corporation, and related i-Rounds product. Very few (medical-related) ghits other than Burke and Teges. "Internet rounds" appears to have some usage to mean doctor-to-doctor consultations, not doctor-to-patient consultations, such as here . Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a previously deleted article for a non-notable product. The "article" does not establish notability other than being a brand of prohormone/designer steroid. The information used to assert notability is unsourced, or is simply culled from marketing that was used by the manufacturer itself about its own product. Note that no other discontinued brand of prohormone (Nortesten, Anotesten, Androsol, 1-AD for example) has it's own Wikipedia entry - despite that there were over 50 other brands on the market at one time. Nor do any designer steroids save for Tetrahydrogestrinone and Desoxymethyltestosterone which has an article under it's chemical name (not as "The Clear" or "Madol" as they were branded/commonly known). And while this particular product is no longer sold, the brand of supplements - "Anabolic Extreme" - is still in existance, making this a possible advertisement. Of note, the user who created and primarily contributed to the article has not made any other Wikipedia edits other than to promote this product/brand. Quartet 15:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to MADtv recurring characters#Real **********ing Talk, as the content of this article has already been merged there. Redirect from the sketch title should not be deleted as long as the latter article continues to mention the sketch. This will preserve attribution for the content, both to satisfy a GFDL requirement and answer the practical question of "who originally wrote this?", and aid in searching, navigation. — CharlotteWebb 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prod removed without comment, which, whatever. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT as nothing but plot descriptions of the various iterations of the sketch. No reliable sources indicate that the sketch has any independent notability. The notability of MadTV does not impart notability to every individual segment. Otto4711 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Deleting redirect also. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is non-notable, and has not been cleaned up or updated in its lifetime; also reads like a personal advertisement. Rockhound (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete the article as original research and a political soap box, but keep as a redirect to United States federal courts. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The stated goals of this article don't warrant the article's independent existence. For example, "[Whether] Clearly, lower courts can give orders to the White House and to federal agencies - which must be obeyed under pain of arrest, imprisonment, fines..." (see talk page) This is not a question about "federal court rulings," as such. This is a question of separation of powers. The question about how, when, and to what degree the executive must adhere to a federal court ruling is a very complex question, and it is properly answered with a discussion of the various spheres of operation of the three branches of government, which discussion is incident to an article on separation of powers, not on the nebulous concept of a "federal court ruling." Hence, my point is that there are existing tools on wikipedia that enable readers to find the information necessary to approach these questions. Articles on federalism, the federal system in general, separation of powers, etc. surely lead a reader to what he seeks. The problem is that the questions sought to be answered by this article often don't have "answers" per se, so much as they are questions inherent to our system of government that are constantly discussed.
Also, more generally, what is even meant by a "federal court ruling"? Is it a preliminary ruling? Is it a constitutional judgment? Is it a rule of construction? Is it criminal? Civil? What federal court rulings does it refer to? District? Courts of Appeal? Tax Court? Court of Federal Claims? FISA Court? There are MANY types of federal court rulings; they cannot be generalized like this article attempts to do. This heading is far too broad to lend itself to any sort of meaningful discussion. The questions about the import of a given federal ruling require context to lead to any meaningful answers. The context in which a ruling is made will be determinative of what it means, who it binds, and myriad other things.
Further, the statement that a federal court is the highest court possible is a patently incorrect statement. There are many federal courts that are "inferior" to state courts. This is not a question of the superiority of the court, per se. Rather, it's a question of the subject matter of the case or controversy before the court.
As it stands, it is my opinion that this article and the stated reasons for its existence reflect a general misunderstanding of the law and of our tripartite system of government. The questions sought to be answered by this article simply cannot be answered in the vacuum of this article. Rather, they are subsidiary questions arising out of the very nature of federalism and our system of separation of powers. This article simply is grossly over-simplistic in what it is attempting to do. In sum, the issues raised by this article are not inherent to "federal court rulings," and their independent discussion breeds confusion. They are inherent to our system of government; hence, they are best discussed in those contexts. Gorotdi (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this in some way relates to Dungeon and Dragons. I don't see how this could be notable outside of the realm of the fiction. Google gives 497 hits but a lot of those look to be people's handles on message boards/forums. There's also no real context here aside from a couple of mentions of books. Metros (talk) 13:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete
Thanks for all of the discussion on this topic. It generated more input than I was expecting.
The arguments appear to be;
- If the company is the oldest bakery in Scotland then this is certainly notable and the article should stand.
- However, the reference for this claim does not appear to be independent, third party.
This second point was highlighted on the article's page, but no third party reference has been found. The claim may well be true, however Wikipedia can only show information that is independently verifiable. Without this claim, the article loses notability.
I hope this is a fair summary of the discussion.
(Spyrobot (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The result was delete both. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be a notable subject for an article. Article is orphaned since 2006. --Snigbrook (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons (except this is linked from one article and does not have the orphan tag):[reply]
--Snigbrook (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article was created by a contributor who would look for any excuse to showcase his toy collection on Wikipedia. This article is nothing but fluff. Karrmann (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Karrmann, plus I can't find any reliable sources that discuss either of these topics. Somno (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Most-likely made up in school one day, unverifiable, and per consensus below. Malinaccier (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New spiritual movement. Non-notable by its own admission and quite possibly made up. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musician notability in question Matthew_hk tc 10:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to meet the criteria for a notable band as laid out in WP:MUSIC. Pairadox (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AFD of disputed PROD. Non-notable fictional (as far as I can tell) article which is not verified. Note that prod was supported by a second editor who said "repost, hoax not current WWE tag team champs and never have been" Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did some searching in news and book archives, could not find any significant discussion of the book in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Though the book is mentioned in a few other books, this is only a passing mention, I could not find sources which analyze, discuss, or review the work enough to establish notability. Aside from these off-Wiki searches, the article itself is unsourced, and a blatant violation of WP:OR. The 2 external links are both to self-referential, primary source websites. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself is a collection of discombobulated quotes with little to no explination of their importance or why those where chosen. as for the book, I havn't found anything either that convinces me this article adds anything to the body of knowlage in wikipedia.Coffeepusher (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. On the keep side, we have suggestions that there are sufficient secondary sources in the article, but the delete based comments give a more compelling argument with policy based (WP:V, WP:N..) reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a notable educational institution in the Philippines and it seems to be an advertisement because of its inclusion in almost all Philippine-based Wikipedias. Jojit (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable local amateur softball team Drdisque (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted via prod and then contested at DRV. The cited sources are primarily incidental mentions which don't provide enough material to write a substantial article. Has not been shown to meet WP:WEB criteria. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. As a rationale, I cite arguments indicating a lack of notability, sources, and concerns of Original Research. The redirect on the search term proposed by RoninBK is reasonable, which will explain why this remains a bluelink. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Concern was: "Article on newly coined neologism with no reliable sources to indicate the term is in common usage; suggest deletion per WP:NOT#OR/WP:NEO." Muchness (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete per WP:CSD G12 criteria; copyright violation of this. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article's subject does not meet the notability requirements of an athlete and appears to be nothing more than a copy and paste of a news article. Billdorr (talk) 04:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#R3. Mangojuicetalk 07:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content already exists at Ovi Online Magazine, this seems like an unlikely candidate for a redirect. Carom (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be a notable magazine. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons stated above. Note that the page's creator, Monkeyman935 (talk · contribs · logs), has so far had this page and Naru-Tard nominated for deletion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ѕandahl 03:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent hoax. Compare the initial revision of the article [22] with the Canadian Hot 100 article - basically identical with a few crude changes - and a few missed ones, e.g. the "Mexican Hot 100 will serve as the definitive measure of Canada's most popular songs". References appear fake - translating them with Google's Spanish to English translator shows them to be random pages on Spanish-language sites with no reference to any Hot 100 charts. Pages were created by User:Password16 who has offered no response to questioning about the articles, and who I believe to be serial hoaxer User:Maneisis returned under another account - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive335#Dubious edits by User:Maneisis for my previous investigations of his long-term hoax edits. Stormie (talk) 03:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. To the article creator(s)/band members, if you can demonstrate reliable coverage from external, secondary sources, come on by my talk page and leave the links to the articles--I'll be happy to evaluate them and let you know if this article is worth restoring. Otherwise, this has failed our notability guideline for musical groups and should stay deleted. — Scientizzle 17:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed Prod. Does not meet WP:MUSIC - no albums released, no reliable secondary sources. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as i stated before we are not only on myspace and snocap, we have many news articles from different papers as well, which links were provided for. and wp:music clearly states that you only need to meet one requirement, we meet the first one, it does not state that you have to have a major label release, or to have won an award or anything like that, it merely states that that is one of the requirements that would validate it. and saying that myspace isn't notible displays pure ignorance. it is THE BIGGEST networking and advertising tool on the planet, how can you get any more notible than that. you dont have to win a grammy to be notable, there are tons of bands that haven't won any rewards on wikipedia. there are no rules or guidelines being broken by us having a wikipedia page.
70.134.78.4 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and another thing...how are we only known in a small circle when we have fans all over the world, last time i checked that's not too small.
70.134.78.4 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that is also something that was stated before, the page was not created by anyone in the band it was created by one of our fans and they told us what was happening and asked us to step in.
70.134.78.4 (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. — Scientizzle 17:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album which fails WP:MUSIC. Page created by what appears to be the artist, who removed prod tag. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 02:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Withdrawn (keep) with no support for deletion. JERRY talk contribs 14:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the worst of the Duke's early shoot-em-ups, a typical B western with not much to distinguish it. This article consists solely of directory-type information, and unsourced plot summary. Already covered in adequate detail in John Wayne filmography (1926-1940). Delete. JERRY talk contribs 02:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy del as a produce of a suspected sock who has been manufacturing such articles. `'Míkka>t 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another article about an apparently upcoming album which fails WP:V. A Google search for "I Am Trap" "Young Jeezy" returns only ten hits - the only relevant pages being WP mirrors. Also, the external links provided in the article do not mention this release at all. Nothing on the artist's official website either. Delete per WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL. May even be a hoax.
Call Em' Out is also being included in this AFD, as a supposed single (stub article with no references) from this unverifiable album. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism, no sources given or easily available, main author agrees with deletion, see Talk:High frequency computing for details. Tavix (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin). Gary King (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable notability. Over 2400 Google hits, mostly related to downloads or viola performances, except for two websites from which article content is sourced (see talk page). I was going to nominate it for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but I wasn't sure whether or not the sentence "He got the 'Würdigungspreis des Österreichischen Ministeriums für Wissenschaft und Kultur'." was an attempt at indicating importance. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norbert Kaiser for a related discussion. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is basically a list of people/organizations a billionaire has given money to. From what I can tell, lists like these are not usually included, otherwise nearly every philanthropist would have a list as such. Also, the references are based mainly on one website. If any particular organizations are important I see no reason why they can't be included into the main article. Mønobi 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So do we have consensus that this should be kept? --Kallahan (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per practically everything. Black Kite 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete g5, banned user; g1, nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional series created by a known vandal, would put it up for speedy deletion but doesn't fit the criteria. treelo talk 01:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Possible hoax or vandalism. Per discussion below. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another hoax fictional element of a nonexistent anime series. --Farix (Talk) 01:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pure hoax. --Farix (Talk) 01:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not assert notability. Google didn't turn up any sources, but there are many Paul Little's in the world, it seems. After deleting, move Paul Little (CEO) here. Lea (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge, NOT performed by the closing admin. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy in-universe discussion of the properties of fictional suits of armor. Seems to be a game guide of sorts. No outside sourcing demonstrating real-world notability. Midwest Peace (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
personaly i dont see why she is famous to be included in this siet, all she is is some small time tv job — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charley Uchea (talk • contribs) 00:44, 13 February 2008
— Nightfactoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Sally50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 86.43.167.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Conorob123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— JoanneW100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Bmilly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Mykier (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Belguim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— AnneHathawaySUA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Sue1012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Kwo08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— 81.83.118.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:((subst:spa|username)) ; suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)) ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)) . |
The result was Keep. The advertising content has been removed & external coverage has been added. — Scientizzle 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FTP client software. No indication of notability whatsoever. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so we've had a go where some think that mayors of any city with more than 50,000 people are inherently notable, how about 35,000? I don't think so, and this unsourced substub multiplied by thousands is the likely result of relaxing notability standards - we have no clue where or when this guy was born, what party he is in, what his policies are, whether he has much power or the city council wields the lions share - nada, zilch. Great encyclopedia article, huh? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independent notability or real-world context established. Might be worth a merge to Macross Zero. Torc2 (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion - Acroterion (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be about a biography that is not notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]