The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability issues. Completing process initiated by anon -- no vote/opinion from me. The JPStalk to me 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Addhoc (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is complete bollocks --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "album" is nothing more than a repacking of the bands existing discography - a collection of mp3's with an image attached. I have not been able to find any reviews and I highly doubt any non-trivial coverage in independent sources will be forthcoming for iTunes Essentials. Also listed in this AfD are the following articles:
Delete fails WP:NN. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:N, as it does not assert why it is significant, and references aren't exactly references, they seem more like unverifiable claims. <3 bunny 22:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology
Sorry, I am new to wikipedia and do not fully understand it yet. Please note that I have taken the refrences part out of the article. I apologize as it is the first article I have written.
Thanks --L-scottie--L-scottie (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable (possibly?) and unsourced. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about non-notable internet show with heavy COI edits. User:MariposaHD has an edit history showing that they have gone through related articles and inserted references to the show. Ideally these should be reverted also. While there are hits on Google, most are sites pointing to torrents to download the show. I was not able to find references that could be used as reviews or other noteworthy coverage. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Note an article about a different individual has now been moved to this name.--Docg 10:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale: By all accounts Alison is a very nice person. But I am convinced that she does not meet notability guidelines and so this article can be classed as vanity. But, as always on this wonderful site, it is for the entire community to decide. User:Terrence Wrist [1] —Random832 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Simply being a finalist for an industry award does not demonstrate sufficient notability. - Philippe | Talk 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to indicate that this mall is notable, WP:N, WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable lodge. First person narrative. Corvus cornixtalk 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability for a convention that was attended by 112 people. KitaKon results in about 700 hits, 107 of them "unique". Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was nom withdrawn. Addhoc (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn. Reference have been given now and notability established by that. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 01:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local cricket competition, no assertion of notability and no independent sources cited. Fails WP:ORG. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete - Philippe | Talk 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This fashion model seems entirely nn. Ghits: in English, French and Spanish are of the forum, naked pics spam and occasional NSFW titles. However I find no verifiable information on this model from which to source this article. I don't find any text period, but the pics must have come from somewhere. Travellingcari (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable unreleased spin-off. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was removed by an anon without comment. Only a single non Wikipedia Google hit. J Milburn (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Zygon has more than one google hit- BBV Online, Galaxy 4, Tardis Libary. The information i have scraped from these sources and other material. Author CHUNKI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CHUNKI (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, try www.thecameraman.tv/Latest.htm and The Tardis Libary, another source is the 2005 SFX magazine Doctor Who special, which includes an interview with producer Bill Baggs. CHUNKI.
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable student organization. Fails WP:N. Nv8200p talk 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
E.E.S.A. is a notable student association, being that every member of the unbc/ubc environmental engineering program must be a member. In addition, EESA (and therefore the unbc environmental engineers) are hosting the next WESST conference. They also atteneded CFES congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.168.189 (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NN. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk
As the article states, there are roughly 1,900 film festivals during the year and there doesn't appear to be anything notable about this one with which to expand the article. Ghits are blogs, forum threads talking about the films themselves, but nothing notable about the festival. I had speedied this as an advert for the festival but it was removed without comment. So I'm bringing it here Travellingcari (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether this 'system' is notable enough for an article. I've tried tagging it for innappropriate tone, being unreferenced and notability, but these are just removed by what appears to be a SPA. So I'm sending it to AfD to get a community view on its encyclopedic merit or not. Polly (Parrot) 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a commercial website, promoting a commercial software package and listing perhaps all books that the mentor of this system has published.
I do not understand the use of the expression "maps each individual’s unique genetic highlighting" in this article. Mapping genetic highlights or characteristics has absolutely nothing to do with human design. Genetic mapping is a hard, labour intensive, time and resource consuming process done by geneticists/molecular biologists that has no connection with whatever may be the output of the human design system. And why would the word genetic be used here anyway? Please explain us what is your understanding of genetics and how does it relate to human design.
It would be of interest for the person who created the system to thoroughly explain what is the reliability of each of the decisions the algorithms take while creating the bodygraph, that is, what's the probability of a center or gate/channel decision being right, regardless of its meaning? 50%? More? Less?
--Mfc10 (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "trained" in Human Design, but I have read a few books on it, and have played around with it. I would describe it as a form of astrology. I have found it useful for understanding the personalities and talents of the people around me. So I would recommend that the Human Design entry not be deleted. However, this entry is VERY BADLY WRITTEN: it is disorganized, verbose, and contains wild speculation. Best to reduce the length of this article to a few paragraphs, list relevant websites for additional information, and present Human Design as a tentative system for understanding human behavior and destiny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor6405 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to history of chocolate --Stephen 00:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an abbreviated fork of history of chocolate. John254 21:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to . CWii(Talk|Contribs) 22:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cfahland (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a low-quality fork of file sharing. John254 21:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:FICTWARN removed by User:Jerry; not applicable; this is not a fictional character or episode of a television series, it is a fictional character in a movie.
Delete explicitly fails WP:FICT. I have move some information in the main article Satya (film). Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of any notability for this library. A google search is problematic due to the number of library records that show up in Google but there's nothing about the library per Wikipedia:CORP#Non-commercial_organizations, which states: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been tagged for cleanup and tagged for having no references at all since June 2007. There has been no effort to rectify this as far as I can see. The page consists basically of three lines of unreferenced text followed by three lengthy sections of links to Denman's films and other articles. Capitana (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, but I have no objection to someone creating a redirect. - Philippe | Talk 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Been around since 2003, but it seems like cruft, and a non-notable two-word combination. Ghits mean nothing really, and are irrelevant here. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's see, WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK, what else.... CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obscure album by a band with no article led by a guy who's the cousin of the much more famous Ronnie (and Donnie and Johnny) Van Zant(s). No sources, prod removed by an anon who also added some uncited claims to assert notability. Cúchullain t/c 17:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like he probably doesn't meet WP:BIO as an actor, which seems to be his most notable profession. Most notable film was a minor role in The Italian Job. Jfire (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Already moved to Bat-and-ball games --Stephen 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO, WP:OR; I see no use of this term outside of Wikipedia ( [4] ). If somebody will find me a citation that this isn't someone's invention, from a reliable source, please add it to the page. Quentin Smith 20:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Properly creating 2nd nom for User:Mdsummermsw, who relisted 2006 discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted per A7. jj137 (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Flash94 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Christopher Wunderlee. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. |
The result was delete, as notability has not been demonstrated - Philippe | Talk 05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independent, reliable, substantial coverage, so I don't think it passes notability guidelines (WP:N). There are two sites likely to have coverage (and these are linked on the article): ModDB and PlanetQuake both of which only have summaries and press releases. Marasmusine (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 05:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Google news search shows no hint [7]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing the appearance of some sources supporting notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Maritime and Coastguard Agency - Philippe | Talk 05:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Google news search shows no ghit [8], Google search shows 13 ghits [9], but do not show third party reliable source with significat coverage on the subject. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The total lack of sources keeps me from a merge option. If sources show some minor importance, the article could be merged as above. --Stormbay (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political activist and commentator, no sign of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - Philippe | Talk 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. No hint in Google news search [10]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leesome (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This bio fails to qualify under the guidelines [11]. It appears to be generated by the author himself, who has published one small book of poetry with one small press. The book and its author have failed to achieve any degree of notability that would justify an article. Leesome (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Only 5 ghits in Google news search [12] Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is non notable. A possible one line mention in the Redskin article might be appropriate. --Stormbay (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus, default to keep
neologism. Google search in quotes "justifiable insurrection" shows 67 ghits, none of which are related to the topic at hand. Author has been using the term on the Supreme Court of the United States article to push a POV criticizing the court, replete with weasel words.
Refs cited in the article do nothing to support the term "justifiable insurrection", without significant original research and synthesis. WP:NOT for Essays. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 19:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOT. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally speedy deletion tagged as an attack piece. Not sure that the article is not salvageable despite the verifiability, reliable sources problem and the BLP in some versions. Bringing it here for others to look at. Dlohcierekim 18:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Micro-stub that is empty, unsourced, and making no claims of notability whatsover, by an author just nuked at AFD -- and yet, somehow, isn't a speedy candidate. Calton | Talk 18:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Philippe | Talk 05:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musical group's only claim to notability is one single, and I'm not convinced that it meets WP:MUSIC criterion 2 as it was not the national chart it reached, it was the R&B chart. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"References" are mentions of their gigs and their own site, save for one brief review of a CD and a search doesn't turn up much more. Seems like a local band that fails each of WP:MUSIC's subheadings. The sole "Lost" claim to fame is weak (it was apparently one episodes (imdb isn't reliable but the other results aren't any more so and he's already been speedied). TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:NOT#DIR Ravichandar 17:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Philippe | Talk 05:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original research- a collection of fictional characters that the author groups into the category of 'cat-like aliens'. J Milburn (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Philippe | Talk 06:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a bus crash. Recieved a flurry of media attention, but has no lasting significance. Wikipedia is not a news service. The article has behaved in a similar way to the media attention- a load of editing, and now a (possibly) permanent lull. J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spebi 07:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN as an obscure computing product. Failed recent ((prod)). Unable to find articles beyond promotional, commercial directory and support material. Article has been a stub since 2006. Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, I guess? Real name gives no Google results as well as most of the books. Most search results for "Ahmed Hamdani" are about a musician called "Marghoob Ahmed Hamdani" or a football player. The article has no references. fschoenm (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that newsgroups are not RS, however the essay is clearly written by someone whith a sound knowledge of Urdu poetry. The above, together with some other tidbits that can be gleaned online, suggests that Ahmed Hamdani is a contemporary poet enjoying significant popularity. Whether the article is worth keeping is another story. L'omo del batocio (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]"My exposition will not be complete, perhaps, without mentioning a tendency that appeared in about 1957 in the ghazal, and which is most pointedly articulated by Zafar Iqbal and some other poets of his ilk. This is the most infamous form of the ghazal because it projects a man who, disillusioned with all the known forms of man that have appeared within the last hundred years, advocates sheer destruction. He uses his creative ability only to destroy. His attitude is full of scorn, irony, derision and vulgarity. He mocks everything, slings mud at it, and distorts it. The advent of the "destructive" man after the man of "feelings" signals the tragic fact that every effort to define man has failed. Basheer Badr, Muhammad Alavi, Anwar Shu'ur and others represent this destructive tendency. It may be mentioned here that the popularity of the ghazals of Ahmad Hamdani in some circles reflects the fond desire in this chaotic period for some familiar image of man. And the distinct echo of Firaq in Ahmad Hamdani's ghazals only helps gratify that desire."
The result was No consensus; default to keep - Philippe | Talk 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for notability for over six months and not fixed. This is a facet of the Urantia book that has no independent references cited. This article appears to be the web's leading resource on this term, and most of the others do not look helpful as sources. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus; default to keep without prejudice against relisting - Philippe | Talk 06:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and fails to establish notability. The article is written like a promo of the supposed rapstar. Page has been created and deleted several times, the template from the last protection due to repeated creation is still there. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 15:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep - Philippe | Talk 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is reffed to just one book, but which parts are from the book? Some appears to break POV rules. It was written by their press manager, nferguso wyvern (talk · contribs), which i believe is not allowed. Repeats info already at Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, and that which is not there isn't notable. The company hasn't done anything notable in both rail or other terms. BG7 15:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete - Philippe | Talk 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a list of old programs and a "program guide" with only two shows actively run be NBC and not local programming. Information on those two programs can be included in the program articles and do not need a secondary location for just more lists. See WP:LISTCRUFT for additional reasons this article should be deleted. It is also lacking in any references or sources of information. Additionally, there are other pages that already house this information NBC, List of programs broadcast by NBC, and the NBC article has a section addressing this [21]. KellyAna (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Spebi 07:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Un-encyclopedic and indiscriminate collection of information Sebisthlm (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject created article that fails WP:PORNBIO. BlueAzure (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete under criteria G12; direct copy of material copywritten at The New York Times website. Marasmusine (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has been recreated many times (the protection template is still there). It is unreferenced, fails to establish notability, and its only major contributer is a user who's name is the same as the article, which points to a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the article is written in an exteremely POV style, with lines such as "He has what most rappers dream of: a devoted fan base" and other such overly fanboy material throughout. ☯Ferdia O'Brien (T)/(C) 14:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to James Adams (character). It seems that he has some association with "cherub" and so will be useful as a redirect. Spebi 07:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An more detailed article on the same character exsists at James Adams (character). I propose that James Adams (CHERUB) should be deleted.
The result was merge to Boris, Hereditary Prince of Montenegro. The question of Boris' notability may be determined at a separate AfD. While notability is not inherited, in this case it is intertwined. If his article should at some point be deleted, there will no longer be GFDL need to retain hers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonnotable. There has not been a "Prince of Montenegro for the past 509 years, according to Montenegro#History. This wife of a fictional heir to a nonexistent throne has no other notability of her own right either. Gene Nygaard (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to his article, her husband's (or possibly not husband) grandfather Michael in 1929 "renounced his dynasty's claim to the defunct throne of Montenegro". There is really no reason to merge her with non-notable husband/paramour, do-nothing (oops, sorry, he did go to school and studied art, don't know if he ever graduated, but that's the only thing mentioned about him and so have lots of other people, that in itself isn't reason for keeping him) pretender to a nonexistent throne without a snowball's chance in hell of ever being restored. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of Manual and Guidebook Lines, Possible G12 for copying of a public forum, along with notability issues of the article Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 13:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. ChetblongT C 19:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, WP:NFT. An obvious hoax or joke article. Google yields no results for the test's supposed inventor, "the renowned child psychiatrist Dr Freidrich Mauhaven", or even for the correct spelling "Friedrich Mauhaven". Sandstein (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect, already done. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete- copy vio of [25] Weltanschaunng 12:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a living(?) person which, without a single source, makes allegations of murder. Azate (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Old freeware game with no assertion of notability, no coverage in reliable sources (only sources are the game's FAQ and a French listing site). Stormie (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion arguments see [26]. It has to be kept because the structure changes through time and one is current and there are also historical ones. It is useful to determine what the structure was when a event in the past is analysed. Many offices change names and the article is helpful to track that. It is to be updated with better formatting, as the main article is also still too short and has to be expanded. The main article, Government of Russia, may be a place to store the current structure if updated, similar to the template. Corresponding Russian article for this AfD is ru:Структура федеральных органов исполнительной власти (1994—2000). --ssr (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Keep - clearly never going to be deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a half-of-line stub (substub). Kubek15 - Talk, Userboxes, Contributions 11:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The balance of the debate was for deletion with the argument against a merge (unsourced) winning the day. I also note that the editors of a long page Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness haven't judged this important enough to mention. I carried out a web search here and thought I had hit gold. However, in all uses except the WP entry, F&G apparently stands for 'Freaks & Geeks'! This search fared no better. TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FICT, WP:NOR and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge until album is released or sufficient reliable sources can be cited to verify current notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No references except an interview with no timestamp, lots of OR. Album in question isn't mentioned anywhere on artist website, and ghit test brings up zero official information on the project. Delete Delete or Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL, with no prejudice to recreating if and when reliable information becomes available.
SingCal 09:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely merge, deletion is not necessary, as this is a legitimate future album, as confirmed by the band at their concert. M173627 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Website states new album coming out and specifically mentions Nightcastle as the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.33.188 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. References establish notability. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable IT company - References are either primary or tenuous. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to add more valuable content to the article, but any advice will be appreciated. Klim3k 14:42, 24 February 2008 (GMT+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klim3k (talk • contribs)
Article has been reedited a bit. I added more content about company partners and product. Klim3k (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 12:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced; what sources I could find showed that this fails future film notability, and has not yet begun shooting. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software, unsurprising because the article says it's an internal use software. Ghits appear to be primarily false positives. Travellingcari (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly non-notable musician. Despite creator's reasoning at talk page, still does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC: his biggest claim to notability appears to be the exec. producer credit, which is not how he is listed and is also no more exceptional than dozens of other exec. producers. tomasz. 19:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable individual. No reliable independent sources provided. Article reads like an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. Ism schism (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No Consensus to delete. The length of the debate does not diminish the valid points made by editors on both sides. Perhaps there are ways to improve the article that could be implemented? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination -- contested A7 speedy deletion, sending here for discussion. I'm neutral on this. - Revolving Bugbear 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Wizardman 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article isn't Verifiable, material appears to be original research, and doesn't meet Notability guidelines Jahnx (talk) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Browser for mobile phones. Article written by user:IbisBrowser. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this is notable. We do have things like Internet Explorer on wikipedia, but IbisBrowser for now will have to wait. The second half the article is unreferenced and the article needs serious revision. The article has problems with jargon, reading like an advertisement in parts, and possible POV statements which could be removed. However I do have concerns with the user editing the article under the same name (IbisBrowser Talk} as the article which draws questions if the person is employeed by the company. Which could explain why it reads a little like an advertisement. The persons main contributions are to this article, which is a little more alarming. There has been a lot of work done on this article, however I don't think there is a significant amount of interest to make this notable. -Jahnx (talk) 06:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if more sources are found. Mr.Z-man 23:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see evidence of patents but no evidence of his bridges or having written about them. A google search with either name doesn't turn up any evidence of his work either. Fails WP:V and WP:N unless sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G4 recreated material previoulsy closed at afd. (non-admin) brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deleted on its previous (third) nomination. Notability of player hasn't increased since. Dudesleeper / Talk 05:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether his name is David Harley Worthington or David Haley Worthington or if you eliminate the middle name and filter, there's no evidence of his existence to pass WP:MUSIC. Sounds as if he's played lots of small town gigs/bands. Travellingcari (talk) 05:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP CORP: Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found.A search shows evidence of activities at YAC, but no evidence of notability. Travellingcari (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see: no evidence of RS coverage, a number of of blog hits and fan sites, a vanity label, evidence of COI. What I don't see is any evidence he passes WP:MUSIC Travellingcari (talk) 04:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ran for office, but didn't win. Autobiography of 99.9% unencyclopedic content that asserts enough notability to avoid a speedy. Fails WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not cite sources and it looks like there are absoultely no sources to support the claims made in this page. A person has asked the creator about sources on thier talk page however recicved no response. Printer222 (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is totally original research. There is no evidence, or even a claim made by a secondary source, that L Ron Hubbard's crazy opinions on sex are the basis of anyone else's views or behavior. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As per whatever the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud (2nd nomination) is. I don't want to restate much and much of my arguement is there. I view it as heavily biased to keep this aticle and delete Renaud, considering the fact that the one main notability factor of each is their deaths. Editorofthewiki 03:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Windows Live. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Little evidence of RS coverage, ghits for either name don't assert any notability. Fails WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. This individual may have a claim to notability as founder of the band Vama Veche (band) and might serve as a plausible, valid redirect, but the band itself offers no independent sourcing of notability. The bio itself does not establish notability and is a source of concern with regards to WP:BLP. I have not protected the deleted page, as only one editor has evidenced a desire to vandalize here and s/he is now blocked, but protection may be necessary if the page is recreated without addressing notability and verifiability concerns, and particularly if recreated as as an attack page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. Was previously CSDed as nonsense, given that a previous reincarnation began solely as "LOL", and a second CSD was removed on numerous occasions. The article was also PRODed at one point, but no improvements were conducted to satisfy basic notability requirements.
In an earlier state, mentioned at WP:BLP/N#Tudor Chirila, the article was rampant of BLP vios., original research and was uncited. Which was pretty much the entire page.
A general English Google query results in very few mentions, and the sources do not assert notability. The page, in its current state, states that "further information will be added soon." seicer | talk | contribs 02:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the first ever article he wrote. His hateful words and lies are the ones that made me take action. He is NOT a friend and DOES NOT work with Tudor Chirila or his band Vama. Pinkish1 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you give the redirect edit protection, please give the pages Vama Veche (band) and http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vama_Veche_(forma%C5%A3ie) protections as well, they refer to the same band (one is in English and one in Romanian) and the user might sign up under a new username and start this changing of pages all over again, targeting those 2. Thanx. Pinkish1 (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sir, all I say is you should be watching what he writes. I wish I could, but I cannot refresh the page every 2 minutes to see that he's added lies again. I'm glad his username/articles are under observation, that's all I wanted. Thank you. Pinkish1 (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He never played or coached at the professional level. Publication could pass WP:BIO, however I find some false positives but none of his alleged articles. Travellingcari (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Can't find coverage in reliable sources; apparently hasn't done anything of note since 4th place finish in Super Idol. Which is understandable; he's still a student. Jfire (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, as notable per the music criteria. Three released CDs and has recorded with more notable musicians. —αlεx•mullεr 17:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion but contains assertions of notability (i.e., famous people Shapiro has worked with), so not a speedy candidate. A full debate needed here. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted this article after a previous discussion at AFD but was provided further sources by the author. I'm not completely persuaded that this now demonstrates notability but its close enough that this deserves a fresh discussion. As this is a procedural nomination I abstain from an opinion Spartaz Humbug! 11:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are the sources provided by the author. The full discussion can be found at my talk page.
Spartaz Humbug! 11:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. This closure is no reflection on my own !vote, but rather on the obvious consensus shown by other users. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the media fixated upon it in 2005 does not make her notable per guidelines. This story is even much less notable now than it was when the first AFD was proposed. Belicia (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of RS coverage and ghits don't assert any notability. State of the art at opening probably avoids a speedy, but there's nothing special about this pool. Travellingcari (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The covered song has already been noted in the original song's article, Another One Bites the Dust. Kodster (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Coredesat 03:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums ("not yet released" = unreleased) are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A low-risk virus with almost no RS coverage depending on name. Ghits primarily concern how to disinfect, no evidence of notability for this worm. Travellingcari (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 0.0 Speedy delete as nonsense by User:East718, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Page seems to consist of no meaningful content (not sure if this is speedyable) , and also unsourced. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of ghits but they're forum discussions, howtos, and blogs. None appear to assert any notability. Travellingcari (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21 copies of what appears to be the same directory listing!notability and unable to verify store's dubious claim to notability. Travellingcari (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged with the notability tag since November 2007. Since then, no attempt has been made to establish notability. Rockfang (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete --Stephen 05:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unmanageable as a list. The corresponding categories for American, Canadian and English pop singers alone contain over a thousand names. So we're looking at something like 2000 names on the list and growing. Sublists by era, by country, by subgenre or any combination of the above might be doable and worthy of articles. To top it off, this list is actually sorted by first name which seems pretty absurd. Pichpich (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion for notability issues. I do not know much about the field of journalism however this persons seems to have a number of awards, according to the article, which may make him notable? Even know the parents "Knights Fellowship" article is non notable and was deleted. SGGH speak! 00:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. нмŵוτнτ 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like this, there are hundreds of religious organization available in Western and European countries. Google hits show only its own official web source and fail to establish its notability. NAHID 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. нмŵוτнτ 23:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable student film from student film makers which fails notability criteria NAHID 08:10, 22 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 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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question that his matter is notable and the sources reliable. I believe that it is written neutrally, though naturally that is up for discussion and improvement. ∴ Therefore | talk 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
The result was keep. John254 01:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we should not have "XXX controversy" articles, as they are inherently POV. Furthermore, this is going way over the top - we should not detail every statement the Pope makes. This is a prime example of WP:NOT#NEWS - hardly anything has come of it 18 months along (at least what the sources say), and is better suited to be merged into the article about the person. Will (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. John254 01:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
inherently NPOV page which seems to list every journalistic oversight of logic, mostly about scandals about living people, at least one entry is about a page that got resoundingly deleted at AFD Will (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]