The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===List of Supercouples===[reply]
Pointless list of fictional and non-fictional people which is not encyclopedic in any way, and is based only on people's opinons not facts.
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list contains mainly red-links. Did a google check, the majority of names don't seem notable and have hardly any results. -- LaNicoya •Talk• 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to satisfy notability criterion, specifically WP:ORG because it has no secondary sources and "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". No independent sources were found on Google or the article itself. Noetic Sage 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod, non-notable organisation. Only references provided are myspace, its own website and the record from the state of Louisiana to show that the organisation has been registered. A google search on the exact name comes back with 12 or so references, then lots of website where "abandon productions" is written somewhere in the text. Has been nominated for speedy and prod already today, but the creator keeps removing the tags without an admin being able to get to it. Roleplayer (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Invoking admin discretion, however, I'm going to redirect it to a quickie stub about the author (having published work in Atlantic Monthly passes my own sniff test), and invite anybody who knows more than I do about him to expand it. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged for CSD G11, but I'm not sure it meets the definition of spam. It seems to be a borderline notable subject; it does cite several reputable sources. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD G12.
Not sure about this one, questionable notability. The artist who created Three Thug Mice may be notable, but in any event the article itself is written like an ad and contains no independent sources. Violates WP:WEB, WP:RS, and WP:N Mr Senseless (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable actor. Stub does not satisfy the primary notability criterion (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Only one source provided, does not source dubious claims of near-uniqueness made in article, and really, having a "featured extra" bit part in one episode of a sitcom (his only known acting credit!) does not make for an encyclopedia-worthy personage. Already adequately covered at the (misnamed) List of Seinfeld recurring characters. Stub appears to have survived speedy deletion for no apparent reason, so I'm bringing it here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Keep by default. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable TV episode, no real world references. Article is just an infobox and plot reprise. Polly (Parrot) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a living person that doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Also most of the content is unsourced. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be mostly composed of original research. Only one of the references provided uses the term "oriental metal", and that is only to list a very small amount of bands; I'd hardly class it as a reliable source. Most of the article seems to be about two or so bands (such as Orphaned Land) and using their style to create a whole new genre - there seem to be no definate sources claiming this genre exists, and I have certainly never heard of it outside of Wikipedia. If not a delete vote, I think it should be merged with another genre; most probably folk metal. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not less used than say Post-metal. Kakun (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) Darkspots (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that it is basically Original Research. Its trying to assert that the bible commands the use of cannabis, or other hallucinogens; this is certainly not a mainstream view. It is essentially a WP:POVFORK of Chrism and Shemen Afarsimon.
The result was keep. John254 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I apologize for the complexity of this report. This is the second time I am bringing this article to AFD. It was created by copy-paste merging Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia. The consensus of the previous AFD was that since Kosovo was a part of Serbia, the two articles should be merged until this was no longer the case. Now that Kosovo has declared independence, I think the articles should be split again. Recommend Deleting this article, and reverting to the previous edits on Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia. I would also support Renaming Albanians in Central Serbia to Albanians in Serbia. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD covers several articles and potential future articles within a defined limit. Specifically, it covers all articles about non-notable divisions of the bible, such as chapters which are insignificant in and of themselves like Mark 12, as well as lectionary-based divisions.
The primary grounds for this AfD are WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT (not "an indiscriminate repository of information" and not "a how-to guide"), and violation of consensus (see Wikipedia:Bible verses and Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/200_verses_of_Matthew). A previous instance of the latter (on the same issue as this) seems to have even lead to a rare rebuke by the arbitration committee against one of its own members.
I'm a member of the Bible Wikiproject and this appears to be a concern of other members.
This is not about the notability of the content of the chapters, but about the notability of the chapter as a chapter; one chapter may cover a couple of notable articles - Mark 12 covers the Ministry of Jesus, The Wicked Husbandmen, Lesson of the widow's mite, and Genealogy of Jesus, articles for example, but it is not itself significant.
It is also important to note that a small minority of divisions, such as Mark 16, Psalm 51, John 21, Psalm 23, Psalm 74, Psalm 104, and John 3:16, are notable in their own right, and therefore do not fall under this AfD.
An additional concern is that the 1-chapter-at-a-time articles are setting up a religious bias and risk of dispute, against the Jewish-lectionary articles. For example, the potential article Exodus 20 would be a POVFORK of Tetzaveh. Noach (parsha) is either a POVFORK of Noah, or a chapter from a "summarised bible" - the latter being a book, not an encyclopedia article.
1 Corinthians 14 has recently been subject to AFD on similar grounds. The result was to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinkophonist (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2008
The result was Merge. I've been watching this one for a while now and expected it to frankly be a no consensus. A consensus has emerged (NPI) however to merge them into one article instead of 10 separate (unexpandable) articles. Merging and redirecting doesn't need admin assistance. Please note, I will not be performing these actions as closer. Simply closing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Regions were disbanded. Schools in New York City no longer belong to regions. Templates and articles organizing NYC schools by region are anachronistic and confusing. Jd2718 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason: :New York City DOE Region 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) :New York City DOE Region 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Short history
Districts: for several decades, NY City public schools were divided into districts. The districts were small geographic regions for elementary and middle schools (about two dozen in all) and 5 large districts for high schools.
Regions: In 2004 the districts were absorbed into 10 regions, and in 2006 they announced the Regions would be dissolved (happened June 2007).
Now: the districts exist (for one very minor task) and as identifiers. The Regions do not exist, and are not used as identifiers. Schools belong to "Learning Support Organizations" (LSO's) or "Professional Support Organizations" (PSO's) or "the Empowerment zone," non-geographic groupings based on who the school pays for support services. Schools may move from one LSO or PSO to another.
If we need a geographic organizer (and I am not convinced that we do), then either the old districts or the boroughs make sense. The regions simply do not exist. Jd2718 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
The fact that the scheme is disbanded should be of no consequence. History is especially appropriate to this encyclopaedia.
Further basic information needs to be added. What there is consists of “This districting scheme was officially phased out in 2007.” This requires a citation. The following questions should be answered: Why were they phased out? What were they replaced with? Where there any consequences, or was the change seamless. What history is there to the districting scheme (when & how was it introduced)? Jd2718’s short history is a good start.
Even if the regions were not notable, the article is important for navigation purposes and for expansion of the encyclopaedia. In this respect, the article is just like a list, only better presented. I expect that the articles will in time become organised differently, but this should be left to editors involved, not decided at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable one-man company. The article was created by the company's owner, who repeatedly removed db tags from the page. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Created in error. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (renominating) non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think that is what we have done with bus routes elsewhere. These days they seem to be subject to frequent change. I took a differnet view on the low number London bus routes, which often have a long history of stability. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Addhoc (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily as it's tagged. My fiefdom is better, it's inhabited by dust bunnies! Travellingcari (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete WP:SNOW. JERRY talk contribs 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Song exists The Band exist and are a touring and recording entity The man the song is about existed and was world famous and loved by many , there is a book about his life and a film rumoured to be in the early stages of production (Shane Meadows has been talking about making this film for years ).Therefore , the existence of a song about the great man would possibly be of interest to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmc321 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Gmc321 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Is there a problem with reproducing a songs lyrics as a reference on wikipedia ? Gmc321 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) The song can be found on the bands myspace http://www.myspace.com/satellitesgb It comes out on itunes via Artists without a label on March 10th 2008 Two clips featuring a recording of the song appear on youtube It produces numerous results when googled It has appeared and been discussed on various message boards relating to Bartley Gorman .Such as Shanemeadows.com and paddyconsidine.com Gmc321 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a business plan type document for an apparently nn company. Ghits appear to be predominantly forum posts and blogs, nothing that shows any notability per WP:CORP. The sources in the article are almost entirely its own website and MySpace Travellingcari (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to throw this to AfD again because the references seem rather weak; not enough to satisfy WP:N. We have trivial mentions at the Creative Commands and Markham's blogs, a forum post, and a trivial mention at wiki.ubuntu.com; blogs, wikis and forums are not normally acceptable reliable sources and in any case, the single-sentence comments involved do not add up to notability. Marasmusine (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per general guidelines found at WP:BIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep (non-admin closure), new evidence coming to light means the person meets WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed since 2006 without citations for its major claims. It appears to largely be a piece of opinion, claiming that a particular belief or ideology exists, or dominates, in "the business world", but offering no evidence for same. As a piece of opinion, it is nothing new -- just reiterating the usual claims that business is amoral and anti-moral; it presents this opinion as fact. FOo (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:BIO--no significant coverage aside from Amazon and other book reviews. Blueboy96 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still no league appearances in a fully professional league since last AFD, so still fails WP:BIO. Previous AFD resulted in no consensus as it was anticipated that Belford would shortly play for Bury, but this has no proven to be the case. robwingfield «T•C» 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:OR etc. скоморохъ 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Tone 14:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable reality TV contestant and aspiring "actress" and "singer" Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BK as a self-publicated book. Author herself is not notable. fschoenm (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Lists are not inherently invalid — however, this was not being used as a properly formatted list, but as a template that was being transcluded back into the article. If you want a list, create a real list. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see no reason for this page to exist. It is a repeat of information already given in the university's article (see University of Alberta#Distinguished University of Alberta people. It might be a suitable basis for a category, but that already exists (Category:University of Alberta faculty) Emeraude (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the net and Wikipedia, and can find no source for any of the "information" in this article. Plenty of sites copy the article, though :-) It appears to be a very elaborate hoax. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep with the caveat of needing cleanup and sourcing, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither notable nor objective, biographical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyturp (talk • contribs)
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game is not notable (there's no reference to it), and may even be a fan created game Doktor Wilhelm 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is unreferenced aside from a link to the MMORPG, and it does not assert notability. A long "articleissues" template was recently removed. Initial discussion about deletion is already shown on the talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Tone 14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reads like an advertisement, and is orphaned. Majorly (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. David Fuchs (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence it passes WP:WEB. As pointed out on the talk page this article was created only 2 months after the site was created and it seems the alexa rank was "bought" by putting well known sites in the sonico domain space. Blogs are rarely reliable and don't establish notability, even the techcrunch article admits no one has probably heard about it. Crossmr (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. Pairadox (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional comics supervillain is not even very notable within the X-Men series. It has no sources indicating notability to the outside world. Strandwolf (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable band. Prod removed by creator because he thinks they are notable enough, i can't find any good sources (ie. not press releases etc.) or other indication of meeting WP:BAND. tomasz. 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would incorporating more of the above into the article keep it from being deleted? biggins (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A prod that was inserted by an admin has been declined after expiration by another admin. I had initially tagged this article with ((importance)) on newpage patrol, long before the prod was added. The creator did respond to that, but was apparently unclear on that template's purpose, thinking it had something to do with the purpose (as opposed to the notoriety) of the convention. Did the convention achieve its stated goals? The article does not say. Therefore, Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Although I realize that many of the "keep" votes come from single purpose accounts, even disregarding them, this debate doesn't seem to have arrived at a consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, another non-notable ex-reality TV contestant, has done nothing remarkable since leaving the house other than trivial appearances such as appearing as a contestant of a gameshow and other minor appearances, not to mention that pervious entries have been deleted in the past according to records Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 86.146.82.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
— Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I'm sorry but your words alone display your detest of Aisleyne IMHO. As I have said before regardless of what you or anyone else thinks at this present moment in time Aisleyne's public profile is still very much alive. Yes she was in BB7 in 2006 and she came 3RD it may seem a long time ago to some. However she is still very much active apart from recently making a name for herself in fashion she has HER OWN TV SHOW COMING UP ON RED TV. That's 12 episodes worth of 60 MINUTE SHOWS. As far as I am concerned that is quite an achievement for someone who has come out of Big Brother in 2006. It's interesting the way you jump to conclusions about the reasons why I like Aisleyne? Is there a law that says I should hate Aisleyne. By the way she's not my hero, she's just someone who I think should be treated fairly and given a chance like everyone else actually. She has done remarkably well recently considering the junk that has been thrown at her. I don't like or agree with all the things she has done in the past but it doesn't give me the right to be judgmental and it doesn't mean she shouldn't be given a chance IMHO. Thankfully there are people out there who will give her a chance, whether she has a page on wikipedia or not. I rest my case....
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable book. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Queen's University Belfast#Housing. Hut 8.5 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable halls of residence. Could be incorporated into the main Queen's University Belfast article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snowball keep. JERRY talk contribs 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable; lack of references Ourmangwynn (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delte, although a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of Notability and references. Ourmangwynn (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator Gwernol 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't sure if this warranted speedy deletion, but the material in this article is not, in of itself, enough to justify an article on the subject. Can I suggest that the material in this article be merged as appropriate into other articles on the topic? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete, although a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestling tournament. It has also been held twice, and therefore probably does not satisfy inclusion into this encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor conference on one side of a debate at the fringes of science, cold fusion. We recently deleted a timeline of cold fusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion, largely because it gave undue weight to the pro-CF side; this does the same. In addition, there seem to be no significant sources independent of the conference and the small band of CF proponents. This is not in any way a significant conference. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to confess that South American literature is not something on which I am an expert. However, this article states that This article is the start of a series of articles about characters from the book "O que é o amor?" ("What is love"), not very known outside South America which is practically an admission of non-notability. I have not found any Wikipedia reference to the book, or to the promised series of articles on characters. The article was started on 2 May 2007 and has had no substantive edits since. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT a crystal ball. Originally submitted for speedy deletion, but WP:NOT and WP:CSD are incompatible. Denelson83 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redundant to (and will never be as complete as) Category:Canadian screenwriters. •97198 talk 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (no assertion of notability) DMacks (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Camberley Auto Factors[edit]
Non-notable company, with no references or sources. The only contributions by the page author have been this one, and an edit to List of auto parts to include this page (which I've since removed) - this would appear to indicate a potential WP:NPOV violation as well. I would have recommended this for a speedy delete as spam, but I've had my hands slapped a few times over being 'over-eager' to speedy delete articles, so thought I'd go for a consensus on this one :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Dauntless Rogue[edit]
PROD concern was notability; this was contested by added references to the game manual, which is no assertion of notability at all. All of 15 ghits for "Dauntless Rogue" -forum -wiki suggest that independent, reliable coverage doesn't exist. Marasmusine (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (Notability established per consensus). Non admin closure Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rules and Regulations[edit]
Unreferenced non-notable album from potentially non-notable artist. [8] Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ed Thelen[edit]
A WP article for a not-notable web admin? All the external links go to his website. There is no single reliable source to back the verifiability policy. Dekisugi (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep Consensus establishes notability. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Wiley (rapper)[edit]
Fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Little outside source converage. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that needs to be stopped is the constant editting of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.14.90 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (Establishes notability) nonadmin closure Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC).[reply] Roll Deep[edit]
Lack of coverage in mainstream secondary sources - fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. [10] Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Tetuan, Zamboanga City[edit]AfDs for this article:
This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JERRY talk contribs 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 and as possible hoax/ attack page. Article itself said this was a major official conspiracy and that's why we can't find any corroborative sources. No sources means delete. JERRY talk contribs 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Chanyut Chokjanphen[edit]
I can't find a single reliable reference to corroborate anything mentioned in this article. Seems to be something floating around in forums, Tripod in particular. Dubious. Closedmouth (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Personal attack removed
Someone by the name of Closedmouth is obsessed with this article and determined to delete it. Why? Who is he? A hacker? An employee of Wikipedia? I have read through the websites suggested in the article as well as other related websites. There are some websites on Tripod and Geocities. The official documents posted on the websites indicate that the matter is real and serious. There was obvious criminal intent by the police and other government officials and personnel of non-governmental organizations in at least two countries. Closedmouth seems to have acted hastily without bothering to look carefully at the websites. Naturally, I question Closedmouth's intentions. I suspect that he has personal reasons for wanting to delete the article. He might have emotional problems. He might be personally involved in the subject of the article. Georg De Hoff, Antwerp, Belgium — De Hoof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was Snowtime. --Haemo (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] A sequel to the solution of ax + by = c[edit]
Contested prod. Author insisted his very short formula was a solution to the Diophantine equation. When it was pointed out that it was not (the Diophantine equation requires integers, his solution uses reals), he created this article which is a solution he invented to a problem he invented with no particular application. Not notable. - Richfife (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Let's address certain points. First off, the article suffers from POV issues in overall scope, not just within the article. On the WP:CRYSTAL arguments, strong positions were taken, however the following passages: "It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis", and the "extrapolation, speculation, and future history" clause refute the condition that it's properly referenced. Let's take a piece from the lead: "The controversy over Kosovo independence includes not only the legality of the declaration itself but also a possible partition of Kosovo and inflammation of irredentism, impact on the international rule of law, and whether it sets a legal precedent for other separatist conflicts throughout the world." To partly justify this section, a single source is used. The entire page reads like op-ed, which does not an encyclopedic article make. If someone is interested in fixing the CRYSTAL and POV issues, I will be happy to paste the contents of the page into userspace for drafting into The Kosovo Precedent, although whether or not that will be better remains to be seen. David Fuchs (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Possible consequences of Kosovo independence[edit]
(delete) – (View AfD) The article is thoroughly referenced, but at its core it's a speculative (though, again, well-argued) essay. It's not NPOV, because it only addresses negative consequences (it was titled Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent before I renamed it). I could just as easily make an article called "Potential synergies of Kosovo independence", but I believe they're both inappropriate subjects. Superm401 - Talk 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(From Navinsan) - my opinion is that this should remain - I have no real interest, but we should maintain consistency and a lack of bias - this article merely restates inarguable facts - it does not implicitly reference any obligatory rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.168.21 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Tumaga[edit]This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{
The result was keep. John254 01:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] PlayRadioPlay![edit]AfDs for this article:
The only hint of notability comes from PlayRadioPlay!'s release of an EP titled "The Frequency" on April 27, 2007 which debuted #6 on Billboard's Electronic Chart. Since then, there are "MySpace Bulletins" that state full album will be released in March 2008. There are very vague sources throughout, referring to either obscure MySpace bulletins or blog postings, and a surmised "music video" that was filmed in only one weekend. MySpace friend and play counts are also not reliable sources. If the album is released and is a smashing success, and there are attempts to revise the article to be something less of a MySpace advertisment, then it can stand to see this article become a little more notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--32.159.178.123 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn (although I was a participant in this AfD, and arguably the most major contributor to the article) I am closing this AfD procedurally, because the nominator removed the AfD notice from the article and struckthrough their nomination here. So my closing is really just documenting a non-admin closure by another party that was incomplete. JERRY talk contribs 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Lucie West Centennial High School[edit]
Man I just keep getting in trouble and told on. I'm getting my feelings hurt. I think you should just leave the page alone and edit a page that will actually get read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationquietnoise (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] World Discount Telecommunications[edit]
non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete No prejudice against creating a new disambiguation page if necessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] German-Russian[edit]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Seems like all original research. Besides, all of this info is already covered in History of Germans in Russia and the Soviet Union. Veritas (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Gujjuweb[edit]
A highly-used ten year old website would have some coverage if it were notable, it doesn't. Ghits are forum posts and mentions of the software used to run it. Article claims its a source for a large Gujarati population, not that this population uses it. Per their own site, 'recent' comments were a minimum of three weeks old. No evidence this passes WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - No consensus Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Ganzfeld[edit]The article cited an "upcoming" annual issue in 2007 and the magazine's official website is a dead myspace link. While a google search is somewhat challenging due to something called the Ganzfeld Effect/Ganzfeld Phenomenon, there doesn't appear to be anything substantial indicating that it was notable when it existed. Travellingcari (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Tone 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Glen Maganzini[edit]
Nominating for AFD because it fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO. <3 bunny 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Could you please explain why this is a candidate for deletion? Perhaps, give some tips as to how to improve this article? I personally do not feel that it, content-wise, is not worthy of staying.
- Do you think perhaps the article would meet the criterion better if it stressed his accomplishments at such a young age? Creating a successful website at age 12, etc.. Gmags2003 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC) -- Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hopkinsville High School[edit]
No assertion of notability. Been tagged as unreferenced since November 2006 (!) Closedmouth (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Rancho Cucamonga Public Library[edit]
The page is a copy of http://www.rcpl.lib.ca.us/history.htm DeeKenn (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore failing WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Self-publishing conspiracy theorist. Nominated for deletion and kept in December 2006, but none of the fundamental flaws -- complete lack of sourcing, evidence of real-world notability or impact, or even proof of public attention -- has been fixed. It's been over a year, and faith-based assertions of notability don't cut it. Calton | Talk 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Keep! Mr. Griffin is a professional investigative researcher. His work reflects that title. He does not make sweeping, unfounded statements or claims; his research is well detailed. After reading "World Without Cancer" I felt I understood the presentation as to the physiological mechanism of cancer growth in the human body. I've never seen where that mechanism has been disproven. What I don't understand is orthodoxy's theory of cancer. It does not appear to have one. How can we treat cancer without understanding its cause or onset? Yet we do. Whether we do so effectively or intelligently is another matter entirely. There are plenty of other authors who echo Mr. Griffin's views on cancer in the human body. Are we to systematically delete their work as well because it may challenge the assumptions of the status quo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimveda (talk • contribs) — Jimveda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The Creature from Jekyll Island: #22,156
G Edward Griffin - Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
I would suggest you watch some of them if you love your country and family. He's also author of many books as well and been listed in whose who of America several times. Even some of the old school educational film strips were are still are many Griffin fan's favorites, like the film strip entitled "Inflation" which outlines the true relationship between printing money and the rising of prices which devalues the dollar itself, which we are experiencing today, which was made some time in the 1960s. G. Edward Griffin founded Freedom Force International and the Coalition for Visible Ballots. There is no lack of notability. Where Ed Griffin is concerned we're drowning in it. What do we have to do, write a new wiki to prove the current one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.181.67 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) — 74.128.181.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Epictatus (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — Epictatus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep This man brings to our attention, important and highly relevant material that many have a great interest in hearing. He does not promote quack theories but merely warns us of what is going on in the world that will affect all of us. It would be a great loss for all of us if we were to lose the exposure that a wiki article brings to him and his contributions to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.156.182 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — 189.164.156.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The result was - Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Regina Freedman[edit]
Questionable failure of CSD:A7 for possible notability of multiple roles. Roles, however, do not assert significance or importance of subject (the actual test, as explicitly stated in A7); notability does not appear to be asserted, as "appeared" is not, say, "starred"; no discussion of roles, no references provided, etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Breshna Orya[edit]
Contested PROD. Article was originally PRODded by User:Edcolins with "Sources requested since September 2007, to establish notability, but in vain. She has written a cookbook, alright (this is supported by a source), but this is clearly not enough to have an article on Wikipedia." Article was ((rescue)) tagged and deprodded (in a malformed way,) by User:Ajmalpaghman, and a discussion commenced on the Talk page.
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Willy (whale)[edit]
A whale skeleton? How is that notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Brianna Denison[edit]
The result was - Keep Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Life Under Water[edit]This article only confirms the cast, name, distributor and bla bla bla. No summary is contained within this article resulting in people not being able to learn much about the subject. There was also a "Credits" section in the article but i deleted the section so you know. Mythdon (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - No consensus - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of supercouples[edit]
A ridiculous article that has no encyclopedic merit at all, it is not based on fact, simply people's opinions Paul75 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Southeastern Skate Supply[edit]
Does not appear to be a notable business. Article was created with the in-progress tag over a week ago, but no improvements have been made to the article. No sources that establish notability are provided in the article, very few people link to their website, and this article is the sole contribution by User:Seskate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Grace Talarico di Capace[edit]
At first glance, this article seems to be reasonably well written and sourced (and surprisingly detailed); but if one reads it carefully, one will notice that it never actually manages to say that the subject has ever done anything notable. That's not the main problem, though. I've examined all of the sources cited in the article, save one, and none of them contains a single mention of this woman or her family or any member thereof. (The one I haven't looked at is the vaguely cited "American Society of Portrait Artists." This, however, is used only to establish that the woman once had a portrait painted of herself, which, whether or not it's true, is not enough to write an article around.) Moreover, every one of the 19 unique Google hits for "Grace Talarico di Capace" or "Grazia Talarico di Capace" is WP, a WP mirror, or a link to WP. In short, what we have here is, in the most generous possible interpretation, a mass of unverifiable original research disguised by deceptive references. Deor (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, "gubbergirl" and "stylestarry" are my daughters, which I told them that if they wanted to voice their opinion about this article- that they would have to create their own account not to be confussed with mine. They are not sock puppets, nor is this a hoax- I am a well documented contributor to wikipedia. Thank youMctrain (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the person who painted her portrait may be notable, but there's no evidence she is. It's a wikimirror farm! Travellingcari (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is No Rational Argument for Deletion[edit]It is an excellent fashion related articel that talks about many valid sources of information, It is completely written and cited from the sources given, and it is an article that many people interested in fashion would get a lot out of.Mctrain (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Looking at the 29 results from a google search under "Grace Talarico" was interesting, and there's a realtor in Chicago who, if not a fashion designer, is "the amazing home closer". Whether this is real or not real, it's not a well-constructed article, jumping back and forth between the person and her family, and J. Zangwell Gilbert. I'm wondering now about whether the article on Julian Z. Gilbert (5 ghits) shouldn't be nominated for a review as well. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are People so Mean Spirited and Quick to Destroy information is only for the good of everyone, the less you have access to , the less you will know about life- period.Mctrain (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax, part of the whole Vitus Barbaro hoaxage from last year. Once again resolving to the Chicago area. What a surprise. Corvus cornixtalk 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] No matter what anyone says, no matter what anyone proves, no matter that the premise of this page is based on a lie(she is fully listed in two sources given), no matter even when evidence is given- hoax garbage starts all over again. There is not a single thing more that I can say that I haven't already said- and let's see if the blood thirsy mob chops the head off of this completely just article. I'll hope for the best"Mctrain (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Wow Hah. I just found this in looking through the history of this coordinated hoax: The current legitimate holder of the Albergo branch's titled names is Vitus Sebastian Barbaro (born on July 27, 1973). His father is Sebastiano (born on July 18, 1935). His mother is Baronessa Grazia Talarico di Capace (born on July 2, 1946).. So this whole article and all of the supposed family members, is just one more link in the ridiculous hoax. It makes my wonder why, if "Vitus Sebastian Barbaro" is really a famous Italian prince, this article doesn't mention him or his father? Corvus cornixtalk 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Wow e Wow What a great find- the case is cracked! I even told Deor that when I started editing this article, that I was interested in the current family and that I knew a little about them, but that I wanted to learn more about the current members. I also know that Vitus worked for the Art Institute of Chicago on the Bruce Goff Exhibition, that I wanted to add, but didn't because Deor said it would fuel hoax rumors, which are here anyways, and I can even cite him in the exhibition catalogue too with an ISBN number, and I also told Deor that Grace was linked to Lucien Ruolle previously, and I worked on the Thorp Academy article because Julian Gilbert was involved with teaching kids there too. You are the only one who want to believe that real people are a hoax. The only hoax is that stupid scared order skull BS where someone put his name into that. Everthing else about the guy and his family is real- and of course there is going to be other people out there writing about him and his family too- it is proof that they are significant, that is surprising to you and constitutes a hoax? I wrote about all of these articles at the same time: lucien ruolle and Grace TdC, and Thorp Academy, and Julian Gilbert etc. because the sources were simliar, and had overlap and because all of theses people and topics are interelated. I have also written about baseball, basketball and other sports at the same time too, because all of those topics are interelated. I have also written about fly fishing, creels, wicker, and bamboo at the same time too because all of those topics are interelated. Pretty logical isn't it, it makes pulling out sources from the library easier when you can use the same ones to write about many similar topics at the same time, but I guess logic here is not in high demand Mctrain (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will be one for the books :| Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Delete Gas it! Gas that Julian Z. Gilbert one too! We don't need to glorify the likes of him Wikipedia.Cancanit (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC) — Cancanit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Delete Oh how sweet it is! Say bye bye to this one too! — 65.141.156.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete full of unsourced statements, with no references to verify them. Only verifiable sources are for for statements not related to the topic the article tries to illustrate --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to The Short-Timers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] James T. "Joker" Davis[edit]Has only appeared in one film, the article contains only information that is already in the film's article.--The Dominator (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"James T. "Joker" Davis can refer to:
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] List of Starbucks Beverages[edit]
Advertising-like commercial information lacking notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, a how-to guide, nor a repository of restaurant menus. Orlady (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Young Merc[edit]
Non-notable musician. According to the only reference, artist has not released any albums to date. Barely meets stub requirements. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per WP:BLP and WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] UFC Champions Drug Abuse List[edit]
Unsourced list claiming drug abuse of living people. I know most of these could be sourced, I believe this topic could be better handled on each person listed here's own article. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Hippo Works[edit]
The cartoon may be notable (but it doesn't have an article so there's no place to merge) but there's no evidence that the website meets WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - DeleteChrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Janice N. Wittschiebe[edit]
Appears to fail WP:Notability. I speedied this a while back then withdrew. On a second look, although the subject of the article is the "first female President of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association, and was a member of the Georgia Tech Foundation Board," I'm not sure that either of these
The result was Delete If anyone is interested in a transwiki to an appropriate place, please ask for the contents on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Linux for translators[edit]
Appears to be contrary to WP:Not, specifically WP:NOT#MANUAL and maybe other contraindications within WP:Not, possibly including WP:Original research. I'm not a computer software expert, but the language, layout, and purpose of this page seem highly unencyclopedic. It would be great if some linux experts could weigh in on this. Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] John Allen Borgman[edit]
I'm sure he was a very nice man, albeit an utterly non-notable one. I do believe every one of those hits is a Wiki mirror farm Travellingcari (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete--Tone 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Daniel Allar[edit]
Allar is non-notable actor who had very minor role in the series Prison Break and he appeared in only four episodes. According to his IMDB page, he has not had any major roles in films or tv shows. Reverend X (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep (and cleanup), tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Construction foreman[edit]
Dicdef with a side of OR. It essentially exists as the 1. def on Wiktionary for foreman. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep. -- Longhair\talk 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Arthur Seyss-Inquart[edit]
Insignificant figure. Relatively unknown Spainhereicome (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was - Keep Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Chop Tops[edit]
Not sufficiently notable for inclusion, even if this isn't a speedy. Addhoc (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|