< January 10 | January 12 > |
---|
The result was delete. Speedily deleted twice in quick succession under WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability, by Eliz81 and Deb. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced and seems to be a hoax/vanity article. The major claim is working in Las Vegas shows but a Google search for "Rebecca Raider" and "Las Vegas" returns one unrelated hit. For a real contemporary star it seems extremely unlikely that there would be no hits, and this is in the absence of any other sources. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Website that doesn't assert significance. Just describes history and features. Can't speedy because it survived a previous AfD (the article was created in vanity when the site was launched) with "no consensus" TheBilly (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn by nominator. the wub "?!" 00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An academic gathering cannot become a separate encyclopedic article. If you make a separate article for each and every seminar around the world, then wikipeida will be a mess. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
Keep I am withdrawing my nomination as sources are given and sign of notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Enoch Seminar has already organized 5 international conferences and two graduate conferences and published 6 volumes (one by Brill, three by Eerdmans, one by Zamorani, and one by Morcelliana). This is not an occasional gathering of scholars, by an established and well-organized group, promoted and supported by the University of Michigan and the Michigan Center for Early Christian Studies, with a website, funds, and an ongoing program of biennial conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.136.73 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article on the Enoch Seminar shall not be deleted. The Enoch Seminar is not just an ordinary scholarly seminar, but a very prominent school or movement of contemporary theological and biblical thought similar to such theological schools, like the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule or Wissenschaft des Judentums movement which already have their entries in the WiKi. So it is natural to include an entry on the Enoch Seminar too. About the question of lacking the sources/references to the Enoch Seminar, it should be said that a lot of references to the Enoch Seminar are circulating in the paper publications, monographs, articles in refereed journals, closed databases of academic publishing, because of the copyright issues, but some of them can be found on the web. See for example here: http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/dsd --Enochmetatron (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember reading an article by Thomas Kraus about the Enoch Seminar in the Review of Biblical Literature. http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=4898 Thomas Kraus is not an attendee or member of the Enoch Seminar, and the Review of Biblical Literature has an established reputation as an academic, independent journal. In his article Kraus presents a history of the Enoch Seminary that confirms all the claims of the article posted on Wikipedia. The article should be cited as a conclusive piece of evidence of the notability of the Enoch Seminar, in addition to the many other references now cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gboccaccini (talk • contribs) 04:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly recomand to keep this entry. The Enoch Seminar had contributed significaly to the field of Second Temple period research. It allowed scholars from different countries and differnt background to meet and to discuss major topics in the study of Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. I believe that already more than a dozen articles were written because of those seminars. Those meetings are important because they allow scholars from the United Staes to meet scholars from Europe and Israel, and to share ideas and insights and to get to know each other. I hope that in the future these seminars will continue to contribute to my field of reseach. Hanan Eshel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.48.201 (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – clearly fails WP:N. KrakatoaKatie 03:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: Went through a PROD-dePROD cycle in early December and rePROD in January '08. Second PROD nominator states "Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:NOTE." User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – clearly fails WP:CORP. KrakatoaKatie 03:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't appear to be verifiable. While the games might be notable, there's no trace of the company on google. (22 ghits total). MER-C 05:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep because there is no consensus for the article deletion. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article currently offers nothing that isn't found on a thousand other simple regex tutorials and help files. If users feel the (currently Perl-specific) content is helpful, it can be moved to Wikibooks. Nominating per WP:NOT#GUIDE: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook or textbook. Monger (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it useful. Another option might be to merge it with the main entry for regular expressions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the 2007 McDonalds celebrity all star game, NBA. While the article has no sources it is verifiable with a Google search. My concern is notability - I don't think it deserves an article. CastAStone//(talk) 01:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Addhoc (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to fit any of the blatant speedy criteria, so listing here. Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete. Secret account 00:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, written like an advertisement, questionable notability of organization VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 23:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdraw. I didn't check this out properly before nominating it for deletion, and it appears that he is notable enough for an article. Egdirf (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an actor whose notability is questionable. Many of his roles are small, and the article was probably only created due to recent events. Egdirf (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - unreferenced article on minor character. KrakatoaKatie 04:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A minor comic character that makes a single appearance is not notable enough for an individual article. The article is also entirely unreferenced. Nothing links to it. Prod has been removed by the author. DanielRigal (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus to delete, nor consensus to keep the article, but the looks like the discussion is leaning towards keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy denied. Admins really should check the sources and not just claim that sources are shown to establish notability. All source are self published. Ridernyc (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you checking the sources Jayron32. As you say, the sources are NOT all self published at all-I have included a number of sources published by third parties which I believe make a case for notability.
Iciclecake (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)iciclecake[reply]
Also, article 4 which regards bands having completed 'a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country'-This band tours nationally, as can be seen from the sources.
Iciclecake (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)iciclecake[reply]
35 google hits for The band name combined with the name of the EP. As far as meeting WP:Band, if someone wants to show me the source that shows they received airplay I'll be glad to look at it. As far as touring it has to be covered in reliable sources. Any band can book a tour getting it covered is the important part. Ridernyc (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Snow delete. - PeaceNT (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
suspected WP:HOAX. There is no evidence such an anime exists. ANN has no entry on it at all. The content is contradictory (OVA doesn't air on Japanese TV), and 160 episodes? Such a lengthy series would certainly not have been overlooked by any of the Anime sources. No speedy option for hoaxes, so AfDing instead. Collectonian (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - referenced, including recent media attention. - KrakatoaKatie 04:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sad story, true, and newsy at the time, but not of lasting noteworthiness and WP:BLP1E. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article lacks any source or claim of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 23:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article containing bad grammar and reads like an advertisement, has had cleanup tags for a year and no attempt has been made to remedy the article The tim (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. KrakatoaKatie 04:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced article on what appears to be a demo for a not spectacular band. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep – well-referenced article, meets WP:WEB. Links to copyrighted works should be removed, if any exist. KrakatoaKatie 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This site fails WP:WEB and the article is purely promotional in nature. Claims to be "the second largest freely available comics database", but its an unsupported self proclamation that does not establish real notability. Primarily sources are the site itself and fan sites, along with a few that do not even mention INDUCKS at all. Additionally, the site appears to violate numerous Disney copyrights, which would make linking to in a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. As it states in WP:EL: "Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Collectonian (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images shown on Inducks pages may very well be considered fair use. If not, consider this:
Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete as original research. KrakatoaKatie 23:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the point of this article. It talks about the concept but provides no sources (other than the cultural references trivia) and no literature that discusses this. It seems to be Wikipedia:Original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep due to changes and references added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be mostly advertising, but there does seem to be an assertion of notability. Delete uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply non-notable. One patent and no outside recogntion. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. -- Longhair\talk 21:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A non-notable actor and singer who does not meet WP:BIO. The article is self-promotional in tone and includes leading roles such as "Father Bear" in Goldilocks. There are some sources provided but given the tone of the article I am loathe to take them on entirely face value Mattinbgn\talk 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - fails WP:CORP with no reliable sources. KrakatoaKatie 00:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly an advertisement with no notability established and a conflict of interest from the original editor (name same as article). This was originally up for speedy which was semi-contested by another editor and I prodded it. I then took the prod tag off on my own because while no one had removed it, the editor continued adding the ((holdon)) tag which indicated to me that they wished to contest it and just misunderstood the nature of the new tag Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. The band fails WP:MUSIC, because the requirement is not being signed to a well-known indie label – it's release of two or more albums on a well-known indie label. KrakatoaKatie 00:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Procedural nomination, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is just a massive repetition of the plot of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which is featured and does need any of this, and this fictional event has established no notability outside of the movie. As such, it just repeats the plot of the movie in an in-universe way, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep – meets notability requirements as subject of a short documentary film (which is listed at IMDB as the winner of an award from a small film festival, for what that's worth) and an Esquire article. - KrakatoaKatie 01:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy delete and contested. Dispute as to whether current article meets WP:Band. --VS talk 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Consensus is slight with only two opinions. It would improve the article if some of the info Lquilter found could be incorporated. I'll try to add one or two sources. Pigman☿ 05:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While no doubt a very noble organization, the article claims notability (sortof) but doesn't establish it with any sources. If adequate sourcing that proves notability can be provided I will withdraw nomination. Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable wrestler. He worked as a "jobber" (a person that loses to the known people) for a few ECW television shows for World Wrestling Entertainment, and that's it. He has no contract with the company, and it's wrong to just crystal ball he will be getting one. Many people over the years have had his role, and a good percent aren't notable. There is no proof Colin is notable at this time. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong Delete- If Ranjin Singh, who has been with the WWE for a while now, is not notable for an article yet, why would a jobber, who has been with the WWE for three weeks, be notable for an article? iMatthew (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. Keep per discussion at WT:PW. Ohmpandya (Talk) 02:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete as fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Withdrawing delete as article currently under work. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN per WP:BK. Article fails to even mention the author. EndlessDan 20:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy A7 by Hiberniantears. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "article" is completely self-referential, and reads as one very large advertisement for this corporation. There are also many extremely unsubstantiated claims. Shouldn't such grandiose claims be backed up with reliable sources? And the article is poorly written and not in any way "encyclopedic". Shouldn't the articles on Wikipedia at least appear to be unbiased and objective? RuebenStoker (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of this can be put in the main Jamaica article. This one reeks of WP:NPOV violations. Nakon 19:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all software is notable and this apparently only ran on one type of computer. No sources to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't seem to find much on it. Doesn't seem to be any hope in expanding it. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. (consider this a db-author tag if you like - the other changes were one cat refinement and the delete tag) (John User:Jwy talk) 22:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a piece of original research about an obscure neology/ nonce word formed on a predictable numeric system with no obvious authority in published material. It contains a dictionary definition and a list compiled by original research. It apparently means "five of something" by analogy with "trilogy" but, just like the deleted article on heptalogy, (see here) the term has never been applied to any of the "pentalogies" named. Lo2u (T • C) 19:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination Withdrawn, recreation of deleted material. Redfarmer (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List which could become infinitely long. Much better as a category. WP:NOT#INFO Redfarmer (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable article that has had the notability templates constantly removed with out the issue being fixed. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus, leaning toward keep; kept by default. --MCB (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and that is policy (as part of WP:NOT) as opposed to a guideline. Yes, it's a fairly well-known term, but I don't believe it merits a seperate article from casual sex - it should probably be redirected and/or merged into that, given that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is unreferenced original research expansion on a dicdef. Feel free to suggest why this should be kept, though - I just can't see any value in it at the moment. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. G1, A1 and A7. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally prodded this with "Minimal context essay. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish stories and opinions." The author then replaced my prod reason with "very important article on life in Ramnad which is rarely represented in the Net." which I counted as removing the prod, so I bring the article here. Seems to be an essay, doesn't seem to have much to do with the subject, and seems to be mostly original research. If an article can be written on the subject, we may as well delete this and start over. J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Milburn
This is an essay narrated through the experiences of a person in that time period and region.The word 'story' is used in the interchangeable way it is being used by writers,news reports are also called as stories, a generic term for all writing.It is in this paricular narrative style for easy readabilty,like giving an example to an abstract theory or principle.without this example it will be very dry and may not create the interest to read.It can be categorised as life in rural india,life in Ramnad,early 20th century Ramnad and so on. Plantgrowreap (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Perhaps categorising appropriately will be sufficient,and suggestions towards this is welcome.I have categories like the above in mind and I am not familiar so far with the categorising process. In summary,this is an illustration of the Life in Ramnad,Rural South India in early 20th century.The agriculture,education,attributes of the people,economic situations and the general struggle of the people has been illustrated. Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In india there is an annual festival in which all the records are burntor floated in the rivers.Is there an article about it in wikipedia? Do you want to make Wikipedia as Europedia or still you do not want to know anything about the world outside of your conscience.
Everything has to be written once originally.
writing itself starts now only, to print articles on subjects that cover Ramnad and the peoples' lives there,now we have to start a free printopedia,why to go back in technology
replies given in the beginning of the article itself about notability and suitabilty,it is obvious proof that comments are being made without reading the article
Mr.Millburn who wrote the 'delete'prod did that in a millisecond of posting the article,keep that in consideration
Before posting any further comment,you are encouraged to read the article and the discussion,editors are supposed to read,that is their primary qualification,not having an automatic software which alerts and you respond like a test of reflex in a millisecond,
Plantgrowreap (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK,Mr.Millburn,I accept the above guidelines in toto and I am working on improving the article,by modifications and citation of sources for the various statements made in the artcle.Thank you for the firm stand taken with a view to maintain the standards. Plantgrowreap (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited:References of reliable sources for statements on the background scenario of the article relating to agriculture, irrigation and ouptput of cultivation to build the hardy environment of the article given Plantgrowreap (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Edited Plantgrowreap (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) References to Hegel's Philosophy of history and the Original History school,sources for the statements in the Introduction and for the Theme of the article, cited.[reply]
Edited Plantgrowreap (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Reference for the educational services provided by the Missionaries cited[reply]
Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)what is this actually about,well whpq for that you have to read the article and discussion,editing and voting is 99.9999%reading and without reading and witout pausing to give constructive suggestions,in a huff you ask what is this and vote to delete.People like you who vote like this should be disqualified ,when one cannot read anything what he can write.reading needs discipline to invest time,off the cuff remarks need nothing ,reading of thousand pages inspires to write one page,writers can very well modify their writing but those who cannot even read cannot ever think of writing,one thing i am becoming very sure,that is wikipedia should allow only those who make 'informed comments' as a proof of their being readers and that they have read the article on which they comment to have got anything to do with voting,writing should not be considered as cheap and wayward voting should not be considered as sacred.Again i encourage visitors of wikipedia to be readers first Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Keep those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia[reply]
Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) one man's idea of notability is many men's idea of notoriety
those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia
invoking notability etc is very debatable issue and particularly when someone from another continent and another culture comments about notability etc,he should consider his own knowledge of countries and people,except Gandhi how many notables they have knowledge of,Hilary doubted that Gandhi might be thought of as petrol bunk attendant by the american students,well,she should know the general awareness of her public and it showed,before commenting,ensure that you are doing so with humility and with knowledge of their own profound limitations,
Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia
Plantgrowreap (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Keep..it is posted just now and further editing is absolutely possible,what makes you to hurry,[reply]
Plantgrowreap (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC) to mostly harmless,but harmful nevertheless[reply]
I'm patrolling deletions against systematic bias did you mean i'm patrolling against deletions made due to systematic bias
but harmful nevertheless
The consensus is reached not by numerical votes but bystrength of reasons
Wikipedia says that of the '2 million articles only one thousand are featurableothers are all written by non-encylo contributors and pros collaboration comes exactly here only,
then according to the way of harmsall the two million articles have to be deleted,i insist you people to read around wikipedia for a change
The reasons,let me add one more:Notability is not a CONSENSUS in wikipedia policy,and notbility guidelines are not policy as of now,
right now notability is given absurd interpretations by some people,gangsters,criminals being sensationalised and puppet-rock stars being promoted by conventional corporate media are only notable as per their undersatnding,despite them being notorious
notoriety is not notability,wikipedia stands against all that commercial corporate conventional conspiratory media stands for.
why harms are coming in the way of wikipedia
i repeat'those who comment here with the spirit of collaboration and good faith need not be offended,you know what i mean,it is our responsibilty to keep away people who do not even contribute reading time,
only collaborative editing and improvement votaries are expected to be voters here,that much i am sure about wikipedia
Plantgrowreap (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plantgrowreap (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Mr.millburn you have not replied to my comment that you have nominated my article for deletion within seconds[reply]
you have not paused to suggest other options
you focussed the attention of the vistors to deletion
and you are not giving reasoning,read my comments,have you repied to any of them,your misunderstanding of wikipedia policies,and everything about wikipedia
That you have won stars for proposing deletions
that YOU have a strong faith in crime as a basis for greatness
don't call any article as rambling, i call you reading handicapped
i am under no obligation to write crime comics for kids
you nominated in a tearing hurry
your idea on notability is just crimes and rock bands,
read my comments on this and reply,REPLY,these are all very substantial issues threatenung the environment of wikipedia
first you evaluate yourself for attitude before doing anything further with wikipedia
your being an administrator well,to use your own language,I can do this or that,i am giving you chance etc,shows that you are not into wikipedia philosophy or thinking at all
can you tell me whether we can discuss your user behavior,discussing my article or whatever with you needs evaluation you first you do not read,you nominate for deletions recklessly,you have no idea what wikipedia is all about
and you are admonishing,threatening and doing all sorts of funny things like kids do for practical joking
i accuse you to be a vandal in disguise,after proper process you are a candidate for 'rapid deletion' from wikipedia user group i have seen the subjects of your interest,deletion is one of your taunts,you disturb people here
none of my reactions are over-reactions
you refuse to see yourself,accept your vandalistic behavior and you do not believe you need reform
have you got the matter in you to react like a writer,
no more notabilty points,
i accuse you to be a vandal,i know my article needs improvements but wikipedia DOES NOT have any need for YOU
All are my accusations which in good faith i am communicating to you before taking up with user behaviour forum
do not take it personally
you call my comments rambling,i call you are reading handicapped,
you lack the discipline to read serious material,you can read 'serial murder stories,
you are against my posting because it is against your faith in crime just read and reply
you are being given an insight into yourself
you assume authority to judge and condemn others
before doing anything about wikipedia you write what is your understanding about the philosophy of wikipedia,this is no web video game, i told you,you are commenting about inane unagreed details,counting the leaves,while forgetting the forest,the reason for existence of Wikipedia you have lost sight of
you read this in good faith,i assume it, and react,
you have spoken about authoritarianism and practicing it here
Before making any comments about my reaction and my article,you reply to my observations on your behaviour,i am just being frank and helpful on a level you would benefit
this is what is important here
be a good boy and benefit from feedback,
The result was speedy deletion under CSD G7 by Hbdragon88. Non-admin closure. --Goobergunch|? 11:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally created as a separation from Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008, but was merged back with a consensus of editors. The article was PROD'd, but that was removed. There's not enough here for the article to stand on its own, and separating out criticism sections is just awkward. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very in-universe article on a minor fictional location. I can see no third party coverage or real-world significance. I am also nominating Alphaverse, which is basically the same article, but on a different location in the sci-fi Charlie Jade. Seems to be a fairly notable show, so I can hypothetically see articles about locations/items/characters within it, but I am not sure these are it. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a game guide and not an indiscriminate collection of information. Contested prod. Pagrashtak 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 20:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15 aged player, at least 2 years and 6 months short for a professional contract and 6 months short for international transfer. Matthew_hk tc 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete to purge edit history, and then redirect to King of Mann#Pretender. DS (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CarbonLifeForm (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
*Keep This BLP was created by admin Hu12 on December 18, 2007. I'll let him comment himself, but obviously including this BLP falls well within Wikipedia standards, see WP:BIO. Noting WP:BIO, the coverage of his claim meets the basic criteria and has had substantial coverage far beyond anything that could remotely be considered trivial. He has been the target of some culturally biased news coverage in the Isle of Man and England, (United States news coverage has been less bias), but citing WP:BIO just because the subject may lack popularity it does not make him less notable and is not a reason to delete the BLP. If it were or if being notable for just his status as a pretender is grounds for deleting this bio then we will have our hands full with all the other biographies of pretenders, many of whom haven't had nearly the same amount of news coverage.--Lazydown (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) This user has been banned as a sockpuppet of David Howe.
:Late Addition Relating to pretenders in general, I notice that two BLP's for French pretenders list between them a total of FIVE sources combined. I added this because one of the other arguments, further down the page, for deleting this BLP has been not enough third-party sources, of which I think there are at least 15 currently available since October 2007.--Lazydown (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
:Attention needed One or more editors discussing this issue are party to a dispute with the subject of this BLP currently being reviewed by the arbitration committee. They have had a substantial history of editing this BLP. They are now giving their recommendation only after having been named in the dispute.--Lazydown (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Rebuttal If a person is crowned a King, albeit in exile, regardless of who agrees or disagrees, and the event is given substantial news coverage as in this case, you are saying that the event isn't significant for inclusion as a stand alone BLP, interesting. Also that Original Research project was blacklisted by Wikipedia for several reasons, none of which cited it's "impressiveness." Not everyone is convinced. It also, humorously I might add, says Howe hasn't proved his pedigree but then proceeds to prove it. It also fails to debate the merits for which his claim is based and instead argues a red-herring for which I can find no reference that the subject has ever asserted.--Lazydown (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::Wrong! Unless he is an archbishop he didn't crown himself. There is at least one picture on one of the many independent news sources that shows the crowning. And, didn't you fight to have the latest, as of Monday, news piece from the Manx Examiner, that suggests that Howe has as much right to the throne as Queen Elizabeth does as the Lord of Mann, deleted out? I think that makes 5 or 6 articles about him just in the Isle of Man press since October; not to mention the 8 or 9 other pieces done on him outside of the Island. Just because you haven't included all the news sources doesn't mean there aren't plenty out there.--Lazydown (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
::Disagree, as people continue to debate the claim and make false statements on this page as they are still doing. The anonymous IP user above made a false statement saying the initial publicity started with Howe's hometown newspaper. That is false. The Isle of Man newspapers began reporting the story back in October 2007. There were at least five combined radio and newspaper stories on Howe's claim prior to his hometown newspaper's story picking it up in December 2007.--Lazydown (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Rebuttal The article has had substantial 'real' references but part of the edit war you referenced included certain editors deleting the references and disputing them because they were not 'critical enough' to fit their purposes. The major issue with the BLP continues to be the pursuit of certain editors promoting things to discredit the subject and not to provide a NPOV.--Lazydown (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::::::By the way, if he wasn't notable enough for his own BLP I seriously doubt there would be this much attention by media and several editors using the page as a soapbox denouncing him.--Lazydown (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment I'm sorry but what exactly is HRH Prince Charles of Wales notable for? Oh, right he's the heir to Queen Elizabeth II, and she is notable for? This whole debate is very politically charged and the fact is that all Kings and Queens are notable for really one thing and everything else that follows is as a result of their station.--Lazydown (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::Addition to your addition I wasn't aware there was a governing body for claimants to a throne. Who exactly has authority over a King? ;-) He is a pretender who has received four bucket loads of attention in the media in just a few months. Far more than a mere fantasist would ever get; which is what you and few other editors maintain. He's clearly not a fantasist as there are people who take his claim seriously, some more than others. So, again, a Pretender to a throne, like any King or Queen is notable for one thing, everything else is a result of that.--Lazydown (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::::Yes, Prince Charles is notable for one thing and everything that followed was a result of that one thing.--Lazydown (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::Comment You're right, it is hard to agree to Keep a BLP about Prince Charles because, like Howe, he is notable for one thing and because Howe also has a BLP. So, I guess I agree, we should delete Prince Charles' BLP. I'll phone Buck House and let them no of our decision.--Lazydown (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:::It does. I suspect though that Howe doesn't quite have the same resources to muster for his protection as does Chuck. Any way, Great then Newguy34 we agree, finally. As soon as we are done here we can move forward working together on deleting the BLPs for the entire British Royal Family and all other Royal and Pretender BLPs because they too are notable for only one thing. Or, perhaps we give page protection to King David's page like Prince Charles' page and we can prevent the politically charged and culturally biased edits from continuing. No matter, because I suspect it is headed that way regardless.--Lazydown (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:What Authority? Nice, who has the authority to establish such a claim? Who sits higher than a King? No one seems to have that answer. I'm also troubled by your imposter heir example and accusing the subject of being delusional. Your insistence on taking the claim to the High Court of England and Wales seems a bit off as well. Are you a solicitor or a barrister, because if not, I don't think you should be dispensing legal advice with out a license.--Lazydown (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Talk) 03:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So I am trying to understand this. Howe does (or has done for him) some Original Research and declares himself to be King of Mann. He then becomes notable because he persuades a small number of news organizations to write articles about his claim (all based on his Original Research, I have seen no other evidence that anyone else has seriously investigated his claims and found them in any way valid, so they can hardly be described as intellectually independent). Is merely getting people to write about you as a human interest silly season story (hardly substantial coverage) enough to become a notable person? The only site that I have seen which has published any other research on this has been disallowed by the Admin Hu12 as not meeting Wikipedia guidelines because it also included statements deriding the claim. I can see how including a paragraph about his claim in King of Mann is justifiable but not a full article about his otherwise very non-notable life. Dabbler (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another conflict-of-interest biography of a nonnotable person. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article to eliminate the company promotion and the 'celebrity' info box. I disagree with the notoriety question as Jason is known well within the theatre production circles. I also eliminated the company logo photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.40.44.70 (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus but leaning towards delete. If the notability is still not asserted after few weeks of time, I would recommend starting another AfD as I think a better consensus could be formed. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a young actress who has had several drafts written about her over the last day. This one asserts notability, and includes an IMDb filmography, but I'm still unsure whether the lady meets WP:BIO. Weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Whpq's comment Again, then why are other young actors and actresses who are starting out like Gina, "allowed" to have their name on a Wikipedia page? Some don't even have as many credits, a biography or any press coverage or any reviews of their works on their page. comment added by RingPOPmom (talk • contribs) 02:07, 17 January 2008
I still think this article should be kept. Her recurring role as Widow on the Nickelodeon show Just Jordon is a significant role and that role was just started to appear on the show. The writer's strike, however, put a damper on any new episodes being produced for that show until the strike is over. RingPOPmom (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. I'm tired of trying to defend whether the acting roles she did were "signifcant" enough to the other Wikipedia editors. I know the things she's done ARE significant. So screw it. Take her article off. And by the way...Whpq...get a life.... you are the only one who keeps coming back here on a daily basis to add your "two cents" in. Who cares. You already said what you wanted. Move on to another article. RingPOPmom (talk) 02:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Citations to the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, PBS, and Sundance Film Festival pretty clearly show notability. --MCB (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN film per WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Doesn't appear to pass notability guidelines, or possess any reliable sources. BLACKKITE 09:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published book that fails every criterion of Wikipedia:Notability (books). I've found no evidence that it's been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself - it's mentioned but only in passing in a Business Week article of April 28, 2003 and an Arab News article of August 15, 2004. It's also mentioned in a handful of thoroughly unreliable sources such as WorldNetDaily, but obviously we can't use those because they don't comply with our requirement to use reliable, verifiable sources. It certainly hasn't won any literary awards, it hasn't been adapted for film or television, it isn't used for educational purposes and its author Craig Winn cannot be described as historically significant in any way. Its self-published status also counts against it; as Wikipedia:Notability (books) states, "it should be especially noted that self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press is indicative, but not determinative of non-notability." I realise that some editors may like the book's political thesis but please confine comments to whether or not the book meets the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books).
To clarify a frequently raised issue, it's not enough for a book to be mentioned only in passing (that's why Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks of non-trivial references). To quote: "The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Also, when assessing third-party references to the book, bear in mind that the reference itself needs to be a reliable source: "'Non-trivial' excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable."
One other clarification: deletion discussions aren't votes and their outcome is determined on the basis of the evidence put forward. Unsubstantiated assertions aren't useful in helping to determine a course of action. Please provide verifiable evidence, with reference to Wikipedia standards, to support any recommendations that you make. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Fatal Fury 2. Marasmusine (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional character with no references. In particular, there are no secondary sources to establish notability as required by Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Article consists of in-universe history, which does not conform to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and WP:PLOT, and trivia, which does not conform to Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Pagrashtak 16:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete per A1. The article is a list of first person assertions, without any unifying raison d'etre, other than that "We believe" it. This fails to provide any encyclopedic context whatsoever. Xoloz (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Version nominated)Unencyclopedic article. Fails WP:V, as sources to not appear to exist for statements. Possible advertising. Contested PROD. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. Note that the article has been heavily improved since the nomination, and the nominator had withdrawn his nomination. Issues with the article following WP:NPOV and WP:OR are really more of a editorial issue; but there is no consensus that the article passes WP:N - given the many interpretations of it made here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks, it's another school... A small K-8 school, which I assume means up to age of about 13. I would not have brought this here if it were a secondary school, but for a small school for young children to achieve notability it would have to make some major claims and cite some strong sources, neither of which this does. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:*Comment brave effort, but IMHO they're not quite enough. Only one reference (7) actually refers to the school itself, and that's for not installing a windmill, rather than any educational issues. In principle I think it's an excellent idea to get the kids involved, will message the originating editor with encouragement. But the technical aspects of writing and formatting are less than half the issue for me, with WP:N and WP:V being far more important and I don't think the former has been completely answered here. Sorry for the length of this comment: trying to say 'delete' while remaining encouraging! Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 10:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Boldly redirected by nom User:Dorftrottel with no !votes placed, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited and in-universe original research. Delete and redirect to Jedi. --EEMIV (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod. Thinly-veiled violation of WP:NPOV. Reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Material within is already covered in other articles. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely fictitious. The last election was in 2005, not 2006. That's assuming it's talking about federal elections, which it doesn't even state. It doesn't give any sources, neither for the election results nor for the crude steel production. It is also full of selective bias (e.g. it solemnly ignores the discrepancy in 1990). — Timwi (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete JoshuaZ (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Speedy declined by an admin as "not eligible". i fail to see how not. tomasz. 14:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW and WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly written article on Non-notable . Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close). —Travistalk 15:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is questionable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW (non-admin close). SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per Wikipedia:SNOW and the notability of villages (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW and the notability of villages (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW: notable but needs improvements, sources (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable pharmacy chain. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as a copyvio of [25] (WP:CSD#G12). AecisBrievenbus 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and poorly written article. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SNOW, WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 02:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable village. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:N and WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:N and before WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Highly POV piece; possibly some claims of significance, but a rewrite seems unfeasible, especially without any references to work from. Marasmusine (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep per established precedent. To quote Aecis, “Dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church are definitely notable, regardless of size.” —Travistalk 04:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep for now, as some of the deletion arguments have absolutely no rational whatsoever. Please avoid statements such as "non-notable" in an AfD debate because it's not really saying anything. Also, the AfD was created hours after the article creation, and I don't think it did gave the time for editors to cite sources. I am hoping that few weeks should be enough for editors to cite sources, if this article still does not assert notability in that time, then I would recommend another AfD. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 18:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, no valid rationale for deletion. Canley (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Discworld (world)#Hogswatchnight. The weight of consensus here is roughly for a merge, but just about the entire content of this article is already in the specified section. In fact, this article may technically be a GFDL problem, as I assume the content was mostly copied and pasted out of the Discworld article.--Kubigula (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be nonnontable fictional element, that is unreferenced, and of interest to a very few people VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 13:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 00:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 23:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a raw source statistics material without any further text or context. Please see similar AfD closing debate for another article above. Dekisugi (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was withdrawn; see post here by KittyRainbow offering sources and an intent to improve the article wo/ the plot vio issue. --Jack Merridew 12:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a huge WP:PLOT vio that has been redirected to the author's page and has been repeatedly brought back. There is also content concern as the bulk of the article was uploaded in one shot oldid by a throwaway account --Jack Merridew 12:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete both. Redirect for Aussie Mite optional. Spellcast (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vegimite clone that has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article itself provides insufficient information to assert notability, and there appear to be doubts as to whether it is being produced any more. Also included in this AfD is the producer of the product:
Again this also fails WP:CORP Gavin Collins (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Exploding Whales per current consensus. Apparently, it used to redirect to this anyway. Non-administrator close. Rudget. 20:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an old joke that was originally part of BJAODN. It should probably either be either moved to the Wikipedia: namespace or deleted. slakr\ talk / 12:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus but leaning towards delete or merge. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 05:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unmaintained (and probably unmaintainable) list of fixtures of result. Per WP:NOT#STATS and previous and current consensus on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Papua New Guinea fixtures and results and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denmark national football team season 2006 Angelo (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating for the same reason the following articles (all of them being created by the same user, by the way):
--Angelo (talk) 12:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. I should remind that establishing where the consensus lies is not the result of a count of keep, merge and delete comments but that those comments are saying in relation to valid argument for keep or delete. This article has a long and complex history in the AfD sector and even what appears to be an unclosed deletion review - all of which have been read by me and considered in this closure. I have not been asked to SALT the article and its variations but that may be required if total closure is to be achieved. There are of course two possibilities for reaching that total closure and so in due course depending upon the outcome - if asked I will perform that function.--VS talk 23:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article has existed for over a year and a half, it isn't even close to meeting Wikipedia quality standards. The overwhelming majority of the article consists of plot summary, original research, speculation, or some combination of the above. The fundamental problem is that there is only one reliable secondary source — this MTV article. Furthermore, the "Juggernaut Bitch" film is not the subject of that MTV article; rather, it is mentioned in passing, as a point of trivia. Anything worthwhile could easily be included in a brief paragraph in the article for X-Men: The Last Stand, referencing the MTV article to discuss the tagline. This article in itself simply fails basic Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a bizarre "national" football team claiming to represent the South of Italy, who played two friendly matches in 1998. Actually, I am a proud Southern Italian and I've never heard of this before. It should be deleted basically per WP:N and previous consensus on Normandy national football team. Angelo (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also including into the current AfD the following articles:
which both played only a single friendly match in 1999, so even less notable than Ausonia. --Angelo (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Article about an unofficial football tournament apparently held during the 1986 Summer Olympics. Hardly verifiable, not mentioned in the official Olympic Games report [34], completely unsourced, does not satisfy both WP:RELY and WP:N. Angelo (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn neologism per WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms - The article cited uses the term, but isn't about the term Mayalld (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus - opinions in the debate were split. There are ample secondary sources, see here, so there are no policy grounds to over-ride the lack of consensus to delete. It is relatively early in the event and a fresh debate, when matters have run their course, seems in order. TerriersFan (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not sure this is worth an article. Another murder, another Wikipedia article. But does the murder have any long-term notability outwith WP:NOT#NEWS? h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence is provided for this novelty song being notable - the references simply prove that it exists. I'm very tempted to nominate it for prod deletion as it appears to be a very clear cut case, but the fact that someone has gone to the trouble to create a page on this obscure looking song and an established editor has improved it after it was nominated for speedy deletion suggests that there might be some notability which I'm not aware of - this isn't the kind of music I have any knowledge of. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 (but WP:CSD#G1 applies as well). --Angelo (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this after a quick internet search showed no clear notability. Author rm prod without comment. Further research now strongly indicates NN. Should have CSD A7'ed it, shouldn't I? —SMALLJIM 10:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G11 (for the 8th time). Non-admin closure Pumpmeup 10:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been already deleted at least 5 times, User:CorenSearchBot tagged it with a possible copyvio VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 10:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep & Merge to Word processor. --VS talk 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nom under WP:PN. Unencyclopedic, unsalvageable nonsense, that may be technically true but in no sense useful information. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable individual, nom under WP:N. Searches for the subject bring up nothing to speak of other than his own website and his contributions to blogs. Article evidently self-created when viewing its history [37] [38] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, the keep arguments are not very convincing as it did not address the isuse of notability for me. Although there are more keep votes than delete votes, the deletion policy favors the deletion of this article rather than keep, as the keep argument failed to convince me the notability of the subject by the standard set out by WP:N Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() |
ATTENTION!
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using ((subst:spa|username)) |
Non-notable. Still a film student; prizes are not notable enough in their own right to confer notability on the subject, either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins - Several of the contributors to this discussion have been accused of sockpuppetry.
*Keep He passes 2 of the main 3 criteria of the Wikipedia:Notability (films) guideline. He is known in the independent industry for his stylized filmmaking approach defined as Fantastic realism or Magic realism. Two of his short films have been made into feature films El Penalti más largo del mundo from Osvaldo Soriano's book and Thermae 2'40. Sources show multiple independent articles or reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.237.186 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still unreferenced after almost a year, and no relevant Google hits. I prodded this in March, but my prod was removed to give the author a chance to add refs. Someone did add a reference in an edit summary to document the existence of Leuatea Sio, who is mentioned in the article - this is clearly not an adequate source for this article. Delete gadfium 08:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability, and possible conflict of interest based on user's alias Wisdom89 (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. --VS talk 22:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adult performer nominated for a single award, I'm unable to confirm the meaning/importance of the reference to hosting duties, this individual seems to approach but not meet WP:PORNBIO/notability requirements. Repeatedly speedied and recreated, I suggest SALT if the closing admin decides upon deletion. Accounting4Taste:talk 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. An interesting discourse - and certainly somewhat novel in that it incorporates the comments of the subject (whose opinion I also welcomed during establishing my view of the consensus - welcome aboard)--VS talk 22:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed prod, questions about this actor's notability. Procedural nomination. UsaSatsui (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it also seems clear that Cumulus Clouds is much more interested in deleting this article in retaliation for spamming than in communicating with its subject. In a sense that's a COI for this article. The best procedure would be to handle it as such. I think (s)he should also reread WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:BITE. And of course WP:MASTODON. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable school. No sources of any kind cited, unable to verify. Only a handful of relevant Google hits, most of them trivial mentions or directory listings. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Martian Successor Nadesico as completely unsourced and in violation of WP:FICT; such content should not be merged. Sandstein (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fancruft. SeizureDog (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable company. Makes no claim of notability and sounds like an advertisement for said company. G-hits seem to be mostly advertisement blurbs and bios for people who work there. Redfarmer (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being a research organization, a Wikipedia article would hardly be self-serving. The notable with AERO is that it is the latest development of the work of Dr. Steven Greer and has a unique strategy how to get environmentally friendly technologies out to benefit the masses. People having done their homework pertaining alternatives to energy generation will know this, and I believe it is an important subject to be up to date on. If your (moderators) minds change about this entry, I will make it a complete article meeting Wikipedia standards. Livinggoldtree (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unimportant fancruft that's taking up the namespace which Chulip (video game) should occupy. SeizureDog (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe a hatnote at the top of Chulip (video game) directing readers to Martian Successor Nadesico when that article is moved over. Hiding T 12:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable animal. Fails WP:N and the spirit of WP:BIO1E. Jfire (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete by Fabrictramp. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Flash game. Prod contested on the grounds that this is the "only game with entire in-game universe, many NPCs, via Flash" - first, I doubt this game is entirely unique in that respect; second, none of this is a substitute for third-party coverage, which doesn't appear to exist. This article doesn't even name the author. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Life_(TV_series)#Principal_Characters.Tikiwont (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable character from a tv series. This article is also written 100% in-universe. Ridernyc (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was decompose. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no context, criteria for inclusion is unclear, and justification for any of the individual composers listed is nonexistent. Tagith (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus - Keep. --VS talk 22:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial product; just another cell phone. Insufficient references exist to support a Wikipedia article that is not a review or an advert. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. --VS talk 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable commercial product; just another cell phone. Insufficient references exist to support a Wikipedia article that is not a review or an advert. Wikipedia is not a cell phone directory. Wikipedia is not a Nokia catalog. Mikeblas (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, as for better or for worse, policy trumps consensus in these situations and it's clear that WP:BLP, specifically WP:BLP1E, has been violated in this case gaillimhConas tá tú? 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deletion proposed by Arbeit Sockenpuppe, who gave the reason: "NN bio". This is a user that claims to be an administrator, although nobody knows that for sure. That user added a prod tag, although from the sources and references in the article it is clear that this is not an NN bio. I erased the prod tag, and added the afd tag. I don't want this article to be deleted, but I certainly don't want it to be deleted because of the prod tag without any discussions. Quoth nevermore (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to participating in the cited articles Afd nominations. Please leave me a message when the Afd's begin so I can get my popcorn ready. By the time we delete all of the so-called crap all we'll be left with is the beloved Pokemon characters. Good luck! Angrymansr (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you delete this, you might as well delete Laci Peterson and every other murder victim that gains national attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.119.122 (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as re-creation of deleted content. Contrary to the nomination, this article was properly tagged, on 2008-01-02 by EEMIV (talk · contribs), when discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination). This article was re-created by Jecowa (talk · contribs) 29 hours after its deletion by Bongwarrior (talk · contribs), by copying and pasting the Google cache of the old page, claiming that in the edit summary that xe "copied verbatim from source licensed under the GFDL". (Copying GFDL content requires more than that. Please read the Text of the GNU Free Documentation Licence.) Xe later removed a request that this be re-deleted per the prior AFD discussion with the edit summary "nominate for deletion". Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rank insignia of the Galactic Empire (2nd nomination) but not properly tagged. It consists of in-universe discussion and repeated plot summary without any real world context. Though sources exist for Grand Moff Tarkin, for instance, there is nothing to show notability for this particular concept. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete G7 (author blanked) by User:Metropolitan90, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, hoax. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy, contested prod. Entirely in-universe, no potential for expansion. Currently just a plot story, nothing that isn't already in I, Robot (film), nothing worth merging. Consensus on talk page seems to be in favour of deletion. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom because everything in the article is already mentioned in the I, Robot article. Kyriakos (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete why cover him when do not cover the other characters. This movie is not notable enough for it's character's to have article.YVNP (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even fully reiterate the significance of Sonny. The page feels incomplete.--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nom as Prod removed November 2007. Does not meet WP:WEB and lacks WP:RS reliable sources for verifiability. Was borderline Speedy on this one, but thought it best to Afd just to be sure it's more than G7. Breno talk 03:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing. The history of the article has not been deleted. While I saw nothing to merge personally, given the brevity of information on other victims, it would not be inappropriate to merge some of the material provided that the merger is properly handled as per WP:MERGE. In the event of such a merger, of course, the history of this article must be retained for GFDL compliance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at a minimum Redirect/merge briefly with names of other victims to 2005 Kusadasi bus bombing) - there are no substantive reasons for her article to remain. The main proponent (User:Spaingy) for keeping the article has since been indefinitely blocked. It is pure racism to allow her to remain just because of her nationality, when being a victim of crime or terrorism is not in and of itself notable as everyone knows (WP:BIO, WP:N). What about the four other people killed in the same incident? Didn't they have families who loved and cared about them? Yellow-bellied sapsucker (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, sources have been added. Canley (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This person isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia and no reliable sources given.
The result was Keep. --VS talk 22:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article about a private summer camp for Greek youth. There is no indication of why it is a notable summer camp, other than the fact that is was established by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, which I don't think makes it notable enough to warrant an article. Watchsmart (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge with Iakovos, Archbishop of America, who founded the camp [40]. I can't find enough info to support an independent article, but it seems relatively important to Greek Americans, so we should mention it somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 06:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone - I am the original author and a new member (learning the ropes). From your comments I understand better the need for relevance and detail that ties this submission to the greater body of global knowledge - so please let me add relevant detail. Please re-consider after you see my edits. Thanks. Planetcast (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Pigman☿ 06:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems just short of WP:BIO. I can't find any sources on the subject herself. There's a bit more for Donkey Cons, but seemingly no reviews by reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus (default keep). JERRY talk contribs 17:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
procedural nomination—version brought to AFD: This was previously involved in a train wreck AFD which yielded no consensus. Now found in the PROD workstream; PROD nominator states "fails WP:EPISODE guidelines as there are no reliable sources to prove it's individual notability. Also fails WP:PLOT". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—AnmaFinotera (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete - WP:NOR. DS (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot find any reliable sources for this game, maybe a hoax? VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Claims to be a former Mr. USA, which is a redlink, so I doubt that it's a real notable claim. Only other claims are modeling in Playgirl and three roles in redlinked films -- a look at IMDb seems to indicate that these films are quite non-notablle. Overall, he doesn't seem to have enough going for him to pass WP:BIO. (Note: If this page is deleted, may I ask that the content from Shane Minor (singer) be moved to Shane Minor?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I disagree since I took the time TO NOTE HIM. He was a Mr USA in 1994. That information is easy enough to verify by checking the list of previous title holders. Also, he was one of the earliest pioneers in using the multimedia to offer personal trainer coaching via cd-rom. He has worked as a fitness and clothing model as well as dabling in acting.
Listen, the guy was a Mr USA. That claim can be verified by checking the list of previous Mr USA title holders. The fact that no one decided to write about it on Wiki is hardly surprising since the title is no longer being awarded. Shane was a celebrity in the 1990s. You deleted his entry which seems odd. The purpose of Wikipedia seems to be a popularity contest that only gives recognition to certain select individuals. It is NOT a source of reliable information because of this.
The result was keep per WP:HEY and WP:N (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 21:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not indicate the significance or importance of the school. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy delete A7 by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable Dragon Ball fan fic. This is nothing at all official, simply fan fiction from a forum. Redfarmer (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. There is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, particularly on the Yahoo group mentioned below, but it's unclear whether this substantially affected participation here. Nevertheless, the article is 11 months old and still has no WP:V or WP:RS, despite being brought to AfD and this issue specifically mentioned. Pigman☿ 06:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of meeting WP:N, no Reliable sources, prod removed by SPA, Delete Secret account 02:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per the notability guidelines for future films, this article does not warrant existence. This was a project that was announced at the beginning of 2007 with the two cast members, but it has not entered active production since then. IMDb shows that it is only in pre-production, and a sentence (albeit unverifiable) in the article says the project is currently inactive. Proposed deletion was challenged, so here it is. No issues with recreation if it can be shown that production began on this project. Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge and redirect to New York City secession. The page is mostly unsourced but sources produced during the AfD demonstrate that this is a genuine movement and I shall include those in the merged article. TerriersFan (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not provide any references for the supposed secessionist movement it purports to discuss. Indeed, there is no evidence that an Upstate New York statehood movement exists or has ever existed. Poshua (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For note, this article was nominated for AfD in 2/2007, and no consensus was reached because some users suggested the page could be more properly sourced or merged, however there has been no change since. Poshua (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was KEEP. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary the information contained within the article is nothing more than what would be found in a dictionary (see the Wiktionary article wiktionary:schmuck) such as the definition, usage and etymology - along with a smattering of original research. The word is already mentioned in the article List of English words of Yiddish origin and commonly used; that does not mean it should have an encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, and indeed the duplicate disambiguation at Schmuck, should never have been created. What should have happened is that the dictionary content should have been kept out of the original disambiguation article (which is now a disambiguation-within-a-disambiguation at Schmuck (surname)) in accordance with our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy. The article did sport a link to the dictionary in a big shiny box in its top-right-hand corner at the time, after all.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete this, delete the wholly unnecessary duplicate disambiguation Schmuck, and let's have the name disambiguation Schmuck (surname) back where it once was. Uncle G (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like to say that in german, 'Schmuck' means 'jewelary' or 'decoration' so I'm not sure if a shop in Germany is a good example. RobinGoesWiki (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article about "upcoming" film. Mostly speculation. Fails WP:CBALL. Redfarmer (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep per WP:SPORT, WP:BIO, WP:SNOW, etc. (non-admin closure). SeanMD80talk | contribs 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NN baseball player, he's just a guy who happened to pitch for the Indians, wasn't even any good. No assertion of notability, no reliable sources to establish notability. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unverifiable, unsourced, appears to be a hoax. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep - KrakatoaKatie 03:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable politician, scant media coverage and didn't win any election, delete. WooyiTalk to me? 01:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – no third-party sources, fails WP:ORG. KrakatoaKatie 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No independent coverage, and just another college political organization. Basically every research institute in America would have a Democratic and a Republican organization. If we are going to keep the article, we'd have Harvard Republicans, Yale Democrats, Georgetown Democrats, and so on. Delete. WooyiTalk to me? 00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was DELETE and redirect to Wonder Girls. Herostratus (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for a non-notable member of the Korean group Wonder Girls. Although the group has been successful, Kim has done nothing as a single person, and the only thing newsworthy about her to date is the fact that she entered the group late, as a last-minute replacement before their first album. As such, there should be no reason why a Wikipedia page for her should exist, especially if this information can be integrated into the main group article. SKS2K6 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Production began in April 2007, so it meets the threshold for WP:NFF; the three third-party articles in references, plus the ELs given in this discussion, seem sufficient to meet WP:N. KrakatoaKatie 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFF, specifically: but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles, unless the production itself is notable per notability guidelines. Just because one of the actors may be a notable star, doesn't make the production itself notable. -- ALLSTARecho 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. KrakatoaKatie 01:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious claim to notability for this specific kibbutz and no sources indicating notability. Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete – fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 01:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
nn actor/model. Shea's acting credits according to his article and imdb consist of appearing as an extra in a made for TV movie, although he is apparently "best known" for a movie that hasn't been released yet and has no imdb listing. His sole modelling credit is appearing in a presumably nn calendar. I originally placed a PROD but it was removed. TM 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable small time actress, in a bit part role, look as if somebody placed this just for the sake of it Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedied as a repost of deleted material. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about a non-notable ISP written by the sales and marketing manager of the company using a role account. The first version of this article, over at Cedar networks, was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A7. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Archtransit (talk) 17:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for non-notable camp provider Montco (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was VOID Bad Faith Nom by vandal-SPA. JERRY talk contribs 04:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
small reasonably unknown person with little base. No need for article Latenightsgalor (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]